Clinicians use the lunge position to assess and treat restricted ankle dorsiflexion. However, the individual forefoot and rearfoot contributions to dorsiflexion and the potential for abnormal compensations are unclear. The purposes of this case-control study were to 1) compare single- (representing a clinical lunge position measure) versus multi-segment contributions to dorsiflexion, and 2) determine if differences are present in patients with tendinopathy.
32 individuals (16 with insertional Achilles tendinopathy and 16 age- and gender-matched controls) participated. Using three-dimensional motion analysis, the single-segment model was defined as tibial inclination relative to the whole foot. The multi-segment model consisted of rearfoot (tibia relative to calcaneus) and forefoot (1st metatarsal relative to calcaneus) motion. Two-way (kinematic model and group) analyses of variance were used to assess differences in knee bent and straight positions. Associations between models were tested with Pearson correlations.
Single-segment modeling resulted in ankle DF values 5° greater than multi-segment modeling that isolated rearfoot dorsiflexion for knee bent and straight positions (P<0.01). Compared to controls, the tendinopathy group had 10° less dorsiflexion with the knee bent (P<0.01). For the tendinopathy group, greater dorsiflexion was strongly associated with greater rearfoot (r=0.95, P<0.01) and forefoot (r=0.81, P<0.01) dorsiflexion. For controls, dorsiflexion was strongly associated with rearfoot (r=0.87, P<0.01) but not forefoot dorsiflexion (r=0.23, P=0.39).
Clinically used single-segment models of ankle dorsiflexion overestimate rearfoot dorsiflexion. Participants with insertional Achilles tendinopathy may compensate for restricted and/or painful ankle dorsiflexion by increased lowering of the medial longitudinal arch (forefoot dorsiflexion) with the lunge position.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,485,437
of 28,494,563 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Biomechanics
#125
of 2,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,439
of 316,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Biomechanics
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,494,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
