Abductory twist in your gait ?

Last night on our www.onlinece.com teleseminar we discussed some clinical applications and critical thinking of gait parameters and pathology. We discussed the dynamic gait pedograph below. Possible evidence of Abductory Twist gait pathology (video linkhttps://youtu.be/F3DHRoHrYOs). In this case, client had loss of internal hip rotation, but they sure love external rotation pivot at the ground interface, as the pedo shows here (more details were provided on the teleseminar last night).
*Fix the problem, retrain normal gait skills, add endurance and strength to the new gait pattern and you have a solution. Add an orthotic to treat what you see on the pedograph and you have a bandaid (and potentially/probably a problem down the road). You can’t fix a motor pattern compensation by forcing a compensatory fix. Get to the root of the problem, in this case hip and pelvic biomechanics ! It is all about mobility and stability ! 

The deeper your knowledge and experiences, the more things you will see. As in life, the more experiences you have the wiser you become and the clearer the bigger picture becomes. All these things enrich the experience or observation. These experiences take simple black and white and render an infinite palate of grey tones. 

To the untrained observer, these are just two feet. With a little more experience these are two feet of different length. Deeper further, these are two different sized feet with different plantar pressure responses (helped here by increasing the greyscale contrast). Deeper yet, this represents a left foot (viewers right) that has a dysfunctional flexor digitorum longus (FDL) and lateral quadratus plantae muscle. All of these observations allow the skilled and knowledgeable viewer to extrapolate and theorize, with clear thought processes, which leg could be shorter/longer, how the pelvis might be distortioned, step length and stride length variability, foot stability and so much more.

The life long student does not need the contrast enhanced picture on the right to heighten the visibility of the plantar pressures, but it helps.  This is what wisdom and experience do, they enable you to look deeper into something and to see it for what it truly is, not what it appears to be.

Come listen to our teleseminar tonight (Wednesday March 18th, 2015) on www.onlinece.com at 7pm central. Log in early to get set up. Come listen in while we delve into one of the bigger questions, if the left foot (viewers right) is longer it has likely pronated more over a longer period of time stretching out plantar soft tissues and corrupting joint function in multiple areas. But if this is the case, why then are they presenting with plantar pressures that are more representative of supination standards ?  

This is mental gymnastics. It is good stuff to do regularly, even though this is a static presentation, many good theories and thoughts can be brought forth. Getting the answer is not the goal, getting the thought process down is.

The more you know, the more truth you will see.

See you tonight, we will break this down into a microscopic level that will challenge you all.

Shawn and Ivo, the gait guys

The “Standing on Glass” Static Foot/Pedograph Assessment: Part 1

* note: This is a static assessment dialogue. One cannot, and must not, make clinical decisions from a static assessment. As in all assessments, information is taken in, digested and them MUST be confirmed, denied and/or at the very least, folded into a functional and clinically relevant assessment of the client before the findings are accepted, dismissed and acted upon. As we always say, a gait analysis or pedograph-type assessment is never enough to make decisions on treatment to resolve problems and injuries. What is seen and represented on either are the client’s strategies around clinical problems or compensations.  Today’s photo and blog post are an exercise in critical clinical thinking to get the juices flowing and to get the observer thinking about the client’s presentation and to help open up the field to questions the observer should be entertaining.  The big questions should be, “why do i see this, what could be causing these observances ?”

* note the right and left sides by the R and L circled in pink.

ORANGE lines: The right foot appears to be shorter, or is it that the left is longer (see the lines and arrows drawing your attention to these differences)? A shorter foot could be represented by a supinated foot (if you raise the arch via the windlass mechanism you will shorten the foot distance between the rear and forefoot). A longer foot could be represented by a more pronated foot.  Is that what we have here ? There is no way to know, this is a static presentation of a client standing on glass. What we should remember is that the goal is always to get the pelvis square and level.  If an anatomically or functionally short leg is present, the short leg side MAY supinate to raise the mortise and somewhat lengthen the leg.  In that same client, they may try to meet the process part way by pronating the other foot to functionally “shorten” that leg.  Is that what is happening here ? So, does this client have a shorter right leg ? Longer left ?  Do you see a plunking down heavily onto the right foot in gait ? Remember, what you see is their compensation.  Perhaps the right foot is supinating, and thus working harder at the bottom end of the limb (via more supination), to make up for a weak right glute failing to eccentrically control the internal spin of the leg during stance phase ? OR, perhaps the left foot is pronating more to drive more internal rotation on the left limb because there is a restricted left internal hip rotation from the top ? Is the compensation top-down or bottom up ? These are all viable possibilities and you must have these things flowing freely through your head during the clinical examination as you rule in/rule out your hands-on findings.  Remember, just going by a FMS-type screen to drive prescription exercises from what you see on a movement screen is not going to necessarily fix the problem, it could in fact lead one to drive a deeper compensation pattern. You can be sure that Gray Cook’s turbo charged brain is juggling all of these issues (and more !) when he sees a screen impairment, although we are not speaking for him here.

Remember this critical fact.  After an injury or a long standing problem, muscles and motor patterns jobs are to stabilize and manage loads (stability and mobility) for adequate and necessary movement. Injuries leave a mark on the system as a whole because adaptation was necessary during the initial healing phase. This usually spills over during the early movement re-introduction phase, particularly if movement is reintroduced too early or too aggressively.  Plasticity is the culprit. Just because the injury has come and gone does not mean that new patterns of skill, endurance, strength (S.E.S -our favorite mnemonic), stability and mobility were not subsequently built onto the apparently trivial remnants of the injury.  There is nothing trivial if it is abnormal. The forces must, and will, play out somewhere in the body and this is often where pain or injury occurs but it is rarely where the underlying problem lives.

Come back tomorrow, where we will open your mind into the yellow, pink, blue and lime markings on the photo. Are the hammering toes (lime) on the left a clue ? How about the width of the feet (yellow) ? The posturing differences of the 5th toe to the lateral foot border ?  What about the static plantar pressure differences from side to side (blue)? Maybe, just maybe, we can bring a logical clinical assumption together and then a few clinical exam methods to confirm or dis-confirm our working diagnostic assumption.  See you tomorrow friends !

Shawn and ivo, the gait guys

The “Standing on Glass” Static Foot/Pedograph Assessment: Part 1

* note: This is a static assessment dialogue. One cannot, and must not, make clinical decisions from a static assessment. As in all assessments, information is taken in, digested and them MUST be confirmed, denied and/or at the very least, folded into a functional and clinically relevant assessment of the client before the findings are accepted, dismissed and acted upon. As we always say, a gait analysis or pedograph-type assessment is never enough to make decisions on treatment to resolve problems and injuries. What is seen and represented on either are the client’s strategies around clinical problems or compensations.  Today’s photo and blog post are an exercise in critical clinical thinking to get the juices flowing and to get the observer thinking about the client’s presentation and to help open up the field to questions the observer should be entertaining.  The big questions should be, “why do i see this, what could be causing these observances ?”

* note the right and left sides by the R and L circled in pink.

ORANGE lines: The right foot appears to be shorter, or is it that the left is longer (see the lines and arrows drawing your attention to these differences)? A shorter foot could be represented by a supinated foot (if you raise the arch via the windlass mechanism you will shorten the foot distance between the rear and forefoot). A longer foot could be represented by a more pronated foot.  Is that what we have here ? There is no way to know, this is a static presentation of a client standing on glass. What we should remember is that the goal is always to get the pelvis square and level.  If an anatomically or functionally short leg is present, the short leg side MAY supinate to raise the mortise and somewhat lengthen the leg.  In that same client, they may try to meet the process part way by pronating the other foot to functionally “shorten” that leg.  Is that what is happening here ? So, does this client have a shorter right leg ? Longer left ?  Do you see a plunking down heavily onto the right foot in gait ? Remember, what you see is their compensation.  Perhaps the right foot is supinating, and thus working harder at the bottom end of the limb (via more supination), to make up for a weak right glute failing to eccentrically control the internal spin of the leg during stance phase ? OR, perhaps the left foot is pronating more to drive more internal rotation on the left limb because there is a restricted left internal hip rotation from the top ? Is the compensation top-down or bottom up ? These are all viable possibilities and you must have these things flowing freely through your head during the clinical examination as you rule in/rule out your hands-on findings.  Remember, just going by a FMS-type screen to drive prescription exercises from what you see on a movement screen is not going to necessarily fix the problem, it could in fact lead one to drive a deeper compensation pattern. You can be sure that Gray Cook’s turbo charged brain is juggling all of these issues (and more !) when he sees a screen impairment, although we are not speaking for him here.

Remember this critical fact.  After an injury or a long standing problem, muscles and motor patterns jobs are to stabilize and manage loads (stability and mobility) for adequate and necessary movement. Injuries leave a mark on the system as a whole because adaptation was necessary during the initial healing phase. This usually spills over during the early movement re-introduction phase, particularly if movement is reintroduced too early or too aggressively.  Plasticity is the culprit. Just because the injury has come and gone does not mean that new patterns of skill, endurance, strength (S.E.S -our favorite mnemonic), stability and mobility were not subsequently built onto the apparently trivial remnants of the injury.  There is nothing trivial if it is abnormal. The forces must, and will, play out somewhere in the body and this is often where pain or injury occurs but it is rarely where the underlying problem lives.

Come back tomorrow, where we will open your mind into the yellow, pink, blue and lime markings on the photo. Are the hammering toes (lime) on the left a clue ? How about the width of the feet (yellow) ? The posturing differences of the 5th toe to the lateral foot border ?  What about the static plantar pressure differences from side to side (blue)? Maybe, just maybe, we can bring a logical clinical assumption together and then a few clinical exam methods to confirm or dis-confirm our working diagnostic assumption.  See you tomorrow friends !

Shawn and ivo, the gait guys

Are old running shoes detrimental to your feet? Here is some research.

Are old running shoes detrimental to your feet? A pedobarographic study.

by: Rethnam U, Makwana N.

STUDY BACKGROUND: “Footwear characteristics have been implicated in fatigue and foot pain. The recommended time for changing running shoes is every 500 miles. The aim of our study was to assess and compare plantar peak pressures and pressure time integrals in new and old running shoes.”

CONCLUSION:

“Plantar pressure measurements in general were higher in NEW running shoes. This could be due to the lack of flexibility in new running shoes. The risk of injury to the foot and ankle would appear to be higher if running shoes are changed frequently. We recommend breaking into new running shoes slowly using them for mild physical activity.”

What do The Gait Guys say ? Did you read our post yesterday on this very topic ? Here is the link.  Never let a pair of shoes get too old before breaking in a new pair. The old shoes can be just as much of a problem as the new shoes.  Old shoes break down the foam into possible detrimental biomechanical patterns that can promote overstress to areas and create injury. A new shoe can be stiffer and thus change your biomechanics away from what is clean function for you.

So what is the solution ? If you read our blog post yesterday you know the answer (see #5 in yesterday’s blog post). LINK  (Blog post December 5th, 2012).

Shawn and Ivo, The Gait Guys

BMC Res Notes. 2011 Aug 24;4:307.

Are old running shoes detrimental to your feet? A pedobarographic study.

Source

Department of Orthopaedics, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl, UK. ulfinr@yahoo.com.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21864342

Are old running shoes detrimental to your feet? Here is some research.

Are old running shoes detrimental to your feet? A pedobarographic study.

by: Rethnam U, Makwana N.

STUDY BACKGROUND: “Footwear characteristics have been implicated in fatigue and foot pain. The recommended time for changing running shoes is every 500 miles. The aim of our study was to assess and compare plantar peak pressures and pressure time integrals in new and old running shoes.”

CONCLUSION:

“Plantar pressure measurements in general were higher in NEW running shoes. This could be due to the lack of flexibility in new running shoes. The risk of injury to the foot and ankle would appear to be higher if running shoes are changed frequently. We recommend breaking into new running shoes slowly using them for mild physical activity.”

What do The Gait Guys say ? Did you read our post yesterday on this very topic ? Here is the link.  Never let a pair of shoes get too old before breaking in a new pair. The old shoes can be just as much of a problem as the new shoes.  Old shoes break down the foam into possible detrimental biomechanical patterns that can promote overstress to areas and create injury. A new shoe can be stiffer and thus change your biomechanics away from what is clean function for you.

So what is the solution ? If you read our blog post yesterday you know the answer (see #5 in yesterday’s blog post). LINK  (Blog post December 5th, 2012).

Shawn and Ivo, The Gait Guys

BMC Res Notes. 2011 Aug 24;4:307.

Are old running shoes detrimental to your feet? A pedobarographic study.

Source

Department of Orthopaedics, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl, UK. ulfinr@yahoo.com.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21864342