R Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPOSTERIOR VIEWBase of Support Evaluating the

R Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPOSTERIOR VIEWBase of Support Evaluating the base of support can be an important variable to make note of in specific runners. Running step width can vary as a function of running speed, but may also be related to common running injuries. A general rule can be followed that, when viewed from a posterior video, the left and right feet should not overlap in their ground contact location. It is not necessary that there be a large gap between the foot placement locations of the left and right feet, but there should be some space. A narrow base of support has been linked to tibial stress fractures, iliotibial band syndrome, and several kinematic patterns that have been associated with running injuries, such as excessive hip adduction and overpronation.35?7 As such, this variable should be evaluated in all runners, and runners with a “cross-over sign” or “scissoring gait,” characterized by an overly narrow base of support, may consider modification. Heel Eversion Foot pronation in runners is a variable that has received considerable attention over many years.38?1 However, measuring foot pronation on 2D video presents significant challenges. One component of foot pronation that can be evaluated is heel eversion. By placing markers at the top and bottom of the shoe heel counter (Fig. 10), evaluation of the vertical relationship of the hindfoot can be assessed easily. It is important to evaluate not only the peak magnitude of heel eversion (ie, the relationship of the superior marker to the inferiorPhys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 01.SouzaPagemarker), but also the rate of pronation (Fig. 11). The image in Fig. 11B occurs 5 frames after Fig. 11A, equating to approximately 20 milliseconds (collected at 240 frames per second). This rapid heel eversion is worthy of note as eversion velocity may play a role in specific running injuries. Several studies have linked excessive heel eversion to various running injuries, such as tibial stress fractures, patellofemoral pain, and Achilles tendonopathy.41?3 Furthermore, it has been suggested that runners with excessive order MG-132 calcaneal eversion be prescribed orthotics,44 or higher level of support shoes; however, the effectiveness of these strategies has been questioned, and current evidence is inconclusive.45,46 Foot Progression Angle The foot progression angle is the transverse plane position of the foot during stance phase. As a transverse plane variable, it is not easily quantified on 2D video using our suggested setup. However, a general assessment can be made from a posterior video. A typical amount of toe-out observed during running results in the lateral aspect of the shoe being Oxaliplatin price visualized from the posterior view (Fig. 12A). This usually equates to approximately 5?to 10?of toeout. A mild toe-in abnormality and severe toe-in abnormality are displayed in Fig. 12B, C, and can be identified by the visualization of the 1st ray and medial aspect of the shoe. Abnormally toe-in foot progression angle may be associated with hip internal rotation, knee internal rotation, ankle internal rotation, or some combination of these. Several studies have identified these motions in connection with various running injuries, suggesting that this variable should be considered in a biomechanics running analysis.47?9 Excessive toe-out is also not uncommonly seen. Although fewer studies have linked excessive toe-out or lower extremity exter.R Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPOSTERIOR VIEWBase of Support Evaluating the base of support can be an important variable to make note of in specific runners. Running step width can vary as a function of running speed, but may also be related to common running injuries. A general rule can be followed that, when viewed from a posterior video, the left and right feet should not overlap in their ground contact location. It is not necessary that there be a large gap between the foot placement locations of the left and right feet, but there should be some space. A narrow base of support has been linked to tibial stress fractures, iliotibial band syndrome, and several kinematic patterns that have been associated with running injuries, such as excessive hip adduction and overpronation.35?7 As such, this variable should be evaluated in all runners, and runners with a “cross-over sign” or “scissoring gait,” characterized by an overly narrow base of support, may consider modification. Heel Eversion Foot pronation in runners is a variable that has received considerable attention over many years.38?1 However, measuring foot pronation on 2D video presents significant challenges. One component of foot pronation that can be evaluated is heel eversion. By placing markers at the top and bottom of the shoe heel counter (Fig. 10), evaluation of the vertical relationship of the hindfoot can be assessed easily. It is important to evaluate not only the peak magnitude of heel eversion (ie, the relationship of the superior marker to the inferiorPhys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 01.SouzaPagemarker), but also the rate of pronation (Fig. 11). The image in Fig. 11B occurs 5 frames after Fig. 11A, equating to approximately 20 milliseconds (collected at 240 frames per second). This rapid heel eversion is worthy of note as eversion velocity may play a role in specific running injuries. Several studies have linked excessive heel eversion to various running injuries, such as tibial stress fractures, patellofemoral pain, and Achilles tendonopathy.41?3 Furthermore, it has been suggested that runners with excessive calcaneal eversion be prescribed orthotics,44 or higher level of support shoes; however, the effectiveness of these strategies has been questioned, and current evidence is inconclusive.45,46 Foot Progression Angle The foot progression angle is the transverse plane position of the foot during stance phase. As a transverse plane variable, it is not easily quantified on 2D video using our suggested setup. However, a general assessment can be made from a posterior video. A typical amount of toe-out observed during running results in the lateral aspect of the shoe being visualized from the posterior view (Fig. 12A). This usually equates to approximately 5?to 10?of toeout. A mild toe-in abnormality and severe toe-in abnormality are displayed in Fig. 12B, C, and can be identified by the visualization of the 1st ray and medial aspect of the shoe. Abnormally toe-in foot progression angle may be associated with hip internal rotation, knee internal rotation, ankle internal rotation, or some combination of these. Several studies have identified these motions in connection with various running injuries, suggesting that this variable should be considered in a biomechanics running analysis.47?9 Excessive toe-out is also not uncommonly seen. Although fewer studies have linked excessive toe-out or lower extremity exter.