Motion-Control Shoes Reduce the Risk of Pronation-Related Pathologies in Recreational Runners: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Method for Assessing the Motor Coordination of Runners Based on the Analysis of Multichannel EMGs

In this paper, we propose a method to evaluate the motor coordination of runners based on the analysis of amplitude and spatiotemporal dynamics of multichannel electromyography. A new diagnostic index for the coordination of runners was proposed, including the amplitude of electromyography, the spatiotemporal stability coefficient, and the symmetry coefficient of muscle force. The motor coordination of 13 professional runners was studied. Detailed anthropometric information was recorded about the professional runners. It has been found that professional athletes are characterized by the stability of movement repetition (more than 83%) and the high degree of symmetry of muscle efforts of the left and right legs (more than 81%) regardless of the changes in load during running at a speed of 8-12 km/hr. Scientific and technological means can support the scientific training of athletes. The end of the Winter Olympic Games has shown us the powerful power of a series of intelligent scientific equipment, including electro-magnetic gun, in sports training. We also look forward to the continuous innovation of these advanced technologies, which will contribute to the intelligent development of sports scientific research.

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

BACKGROUND

Lower-limb running injuries are common. Running shoes have been proposed as one means of reducing injury risk. However, there is uncertainty as to how effective running shoes are for the prevention of injury. It is also unclear how the effects of different characteristics of running shoes prevent injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of running shoes for preventing lower-limb running injuries in adult runners.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus plus trial registers WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving runners or military personnel in basic training that either compared a) a running shoe with a non-running shoe; b) different types of running shoes (minimalist, neutral/cushioned, motion control, stability, soft midsole, hard midsole); or c) footwear recommended and selected on foot posture versus footwear not recommended and not selected on foot posture for preventing lower-limb running injuries. Our primary outcomes were number of people sustaining a lower-limb running injury and number of lower-limb running injuries. Our secondary outcomes were number of runners who failed to return to running or their previous level of running, runner satisfaction with footwear, adverse events other than musculoskeletal injuries, and number of runners requiring hospital admission or surgery, or both, for musculoskeletal injury or adverse event.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the included evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials in the analysis which included a total of 11,240 participants, in trials that lasted from 6 to 26 weeks and were carried out in North America, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Most of the evidence was low or very low certainty as it was not possible to blind runners to their allocated running shoe, there was variation in the definition of an injury and characteristics of footwear, and there were too few studies for most comparisons. We did not find any trials that compared running shoes with non-running shoes. Neutral/cushioned versus minimalist (5 studies, 766 participants) Neutral/cushioned shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with minimalist shoes (low-certainty evidence) (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.01). One trial reported that 67% and 92% of runners were satisfied with their neutral/cushioned or minimalist running shoes, respectively (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.12). Another trial reported mean satisfaction scores ranged from 4.0 to 4.3 in the neutral/ cushioned group and 3.6 to 3.9 in the minimalist running shoe group out of a total of 5. Hence neutral/cushioned running shoes may make little or no difference to runner satisfaction with footwear (low-certainty evidence). Motion control versus neutral / cushioned (2 studies, 421 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral / cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.81). Soft midsole versus hard midsole (2 studies, 1095 participants) Soft midsole shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with hard midsole shoes (low-certainty of evidence) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Stability versus neutral / cushioned (1 study, 57 participants) It is uncertain whether or not stability shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral/cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.31). Motion control versus stability (1 study, 56 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with stability shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40). Running shoes prescribed and selected on foot posture (3 studies, 7203 participants) There was no evidence that running shoes prescribed based on static foot posture reduced the number of injuries compared with those who received a shoe not prescribed based on foot posture in military recruits (Rate Ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13). Subgroup analysis confirmed these findings were consistent between males and females. Therefore, prescribing running shoes and selecting on foot posture probably makes little or no difference to lower-limb running injuries (moderate-certainty evidence). Data were not available for all other review outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most evidence demonstrates no reduction in lower-limb running injuries in adults when comparing different types of running shoes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence determining whether different types of running shoes influence running injury rates was very low to low, and as such we are uncertain as to the true effects of different types of running shoes upon injury rates. There is no evidence that prescribing footwear based on foot type reduces running-related lower-limb injures in adults. The evidence for this comparison was rated as moderate and as such we can have more certainty when interpreting these findings. However, all three trials included in this comparison used military populations and as such the findings may differ in recreational runners.  Future researchers should develop a consensus definition of running shoe design to help standardise classification. The definition of a running injury should also be used consistently and confirmed via health practitioners. More researchers should consider a RCT design to increase the evidence in this area. Lastly, future work should look to explore the influence of different types or running shoes upon injury rates in specific subgroups.

Evaluation and optimisation of a footwear assessment tool for use within a clinical environment

Footwear has been documented as a significant factor in the aetiology of foot pain in the general population. Assessing footwear in a clinical setting continues to be practitioner specific and there is limited guidance to direct advice. Health professionals must have access to clinically appropriate and reliable footwear assessment tools to educate patients on healthier footwear choices. The primary aim of this study was to critique what elements should be in a footwear assessment tool with a secondary aim of testing the agreed tool for validity.

A combined Nominal Group Technique and then a Delphi technique from purposively sampled experts of foot health professions were employed to critique elements of footwear assessment. The agreed tool was then tested by practising podiatrists on 5 different shoes to assess the validity and reliability of the measures.

Twelve test evaluation criteria were identified receiving significant ratings to form the final footwear assessment tool consisting of five footwear themes. Application of the tool in a clinical setting validated the themes of footwear characteristics, footwear structure, motion control and wear patterns. However, the assessment of footwear fit was not reliable.

The footwear tool was refined based on the collective consensus achieved from the rounds creating a more clinically appropriate tool. The validity of this tool was assessed as high in some of the themes but for those that were lower, a training need was identified.

Are static foot posture and ankle dorsiflexion range of motion associated with Achilles tendinopathy? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Subtalar hyperpronation and ankle dorsiflexion restriction have been theoretically associated with Achilles tendinopathy (AT). However, evidence to support these associations is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To compare foot alignment and ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) between the symptomatic and non-symptomatic limbs of individuals with unilateral AT. And to verify whether differences exist between individuals with symptomatic pronated feet and individuals with symptomatic neutral/supinated feet in terms of tendon pain, structure, and symptom severity.

METHODS

Sixty-three participants with unilateral AT underwent a bilateral evaluation of pain during tendon palpation, symptom severity, tendon thickening, tendon neovascularization, ankle dorsiflexion ROM, and foot posture alignment [foot posture index (FPI), navicular drop, navicular drift, and longitudinal arch angle (LAA)]. Side and group comparisons were made using t-tests and correlations were evaluated using the Pearson test.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the symptomatic and non-symptomatic limbs regarding foot posture alignment. Specifically, non-significant negligible differences were observed between limbs regarding FPI [mean difference (MD)=-0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.70, 0.25), navicular drop (MD=0.58 mm; 95%CI=-0.25, 1.43), navicular drift (MD=0.16 mm; 95%CI=-0.77, 1.09), and LAA (MD=0.30º; 95%CI=-1.74, 2.34). There was no difference between limbs regarding ankle dorsiflexion ROM. However, lower ankle dorsiflexion was associated with worse symptom severity (r = 0.223). Finally, no difference was observed between individuals with symptomatic pronated feet and individuals with symptomatic neutral/supinated feet in terms of tendon pain or structure.

CONCLUSIONS

Static foot alignment measures do not seem to be clinically relevant in patients with AT. Smaller ankle dorsiflexion ROM, however, was associated with greater symptom severity in this population.