Thus, Squadrone and Gallozzi7 analyzed sagittal ankle kinematics 15 ms prior to touchdown whereas the other studies including the current study analyzed joint excursion at touchdown. Further, the use of different MRS conditions (Nike Free 3.0 and Vibram FiveFingers™ (Vibram, Albizzate, Italy)) might also influence the results, FG-4592 ic50 since the Vibram FiveFingers™ is basically a sock that covers the foot. Lastly, although Paquette et al.5 stated that there was no difference in strike patterns at touchdown for kinematics between BF and MRS with regard to TRS, the study results were not comparable with ours since Paquette et al.5 evaluated pressure data instead of kinematic data.
On the other hand, Bishop et al.19 also reported a decrease in ankle joint dorsiflexion at touchdown for BF compared with TRS, whereas the absolute values corresponded well with the Sinclair et al. data.6 Similar results were found in the study by De Wit et al.20 in 2000. In summary, although influencing factors were not or hardly verified in many of the described studies and although the applied methods (2D vs. 3D) and calculation routines differ between the different approaches, we assume that our data support the current research even under a strictly monitored measurement setup. As we did not include a TRS
condition in our study design, based on the findings from Sinclair et al. 6 and Squadrone and Gallozzi, 7 we would suppose sagittal ankle joint excursions wearing the Nike Free 3.0 to be between selleckchem BF and TRS, whereas we presume the Vibram FiveFingers™ MRS to be closer to BF. Our results present a more inverted rearfoot at touchdown and throughout initial contact phase for MRS, which seems to concur with the studies by Bonacci et al.4 and TenBroek et al.13 We assume others an increased inversion of the rearfoot at touchdown to be a consequence of a more dorsiflexed ankle joint, since the tibialis anterior muscle, as main dorsiflexor muscle, also leads to increased inversion due to its insertion at the medial side of the foot. The study by Sinclair et al.6
did not report any differences between BF and MRS, which is in contrast to our findings. We would presume that these contradicting results are due to the different marker sets at the foot and consequently due to the different calculation methods used to quantify frontal rearfoot motion. No differences between BF and MRS towards TRS were reported in either paper. No comparing data could be derived from Paquette et al.5 or Squadrone and Gallozzi.7 Further, no information about the inversion of the rearfoot at touchdown was found in the papers by Bishop et al.19 and De Wit et al.20 As we did not include a TRS condition in our study design, based on the above described findings we would assume that frontal ankle kinematics in wearing the Nike Free 3.