Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Effect of custom-made and prefabricated foot orthoses on kinematic parameters during an intense prolonged run

  • Marina Gil-Calvo ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Marina Gil-Calvo, Irene Jimenez-Perez, Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada, Ángel G. Lucas-Cuevas, Pedro Pérez-Soriano

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Physical Education and Sports, Research Group in Sport Biomechanics (GIBD), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

  • Irene Jimenez-Perez ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Marina Gil-Calvo, Irene Jimenez-Perez, Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada, Ángel G. Lucas-Cuevas, Pedro Pérez-Soriano

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    i.jimenez.gibd@gmail.com

    Affiliations Department of Physical Education and Sports, Research Group in Sport Biomechanics (GIBD), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, Department of Physiology, Research Group in Medical Physics (GIFIME), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

  • Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Marina Gil-Calvo, Irene Jimenez-Perez, Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada, Ángel G. Lucas-Cuevas, Pedro Pérez-Soriano

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Physical Education and Sports, Research Group in Sport Biomechanics (GIBD), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, Department of Physiology, Research Group in Medical Physics (GIFIME), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

  • Ángel G. Lucas-Cuevas ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Marina Gil-Calvo, Irene Jimenez-Perez, Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada, Ángel G. Lucas-Cuevas, Pedro Pérez-Soriano

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Physical Education and Sports, Research Group in Sport Biomechanics (GIBD), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

  • Pedro Pérez-Soriano

    Contributed equally to this work with: Marina Gil-Calvo, Irene Jimenez-Perez, Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada, Ángel G. Lucas-Cuevas, Pedro Pérez-Soriano

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Physical Education and Sports, Research Group in Sport Biomechanics (GIBD), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Effect of custom-made and prefabricated foot orthoses on kinematic parameters during an intense prolonged run

  • Marina Gil-Calvo, 
  • Irene Jimenez-Perez, 
  • Jose Ignacio Priego-Quesada, 
  • Ángel G. Lucas-Cuevas, 
  • Pedro Pérez-Soriano
PLOS
x

Abstract

Foot orthoses are one of the most used strategies by healthy runners in injury prevention and performance improvement. However, their effect on running kinematics throughout an intense prolonged run in this population is unknown. Moreover, there is some controversy regarding the use of custom-made versus prefabricated foot orthoses. This study analysed the effect of different foot orthoses (custom-made, prefabricated and a control condition) on spatio-temporal and angular (knee flexion and foot eversion) kinematic parameters and their behaviour during an intense prolonged run. Twenty-four recreational runners performed three similar tests that consisted of running 20 min on a treadmill at 80% of their maximal aerobic speed, each one with a different foot orthosis condition. Contact and flight time, and stride length and stride rate were measured every 5 min by an optical measurement photoelectric cell system. Knee flexion and foot eversion kinematic parameters were measured by two high-speed cameras. No significant differences were found between the different foot orthoses in any of the time points studied and between the interaction of foot orthosis and behaviour over time, in any of the variables studied (P > 0.05). The use of custom-made and prefabricated foot orthoses during an intense prolonged run does not produce changes in spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters in healthy runners. These results suggest that a healthy runner maintains its ideal movement pattern throughout a 20 minute prolonged run, regardless the type of foot orthosis used.

Introduction

Running is one of the most popular recreational and competitive physical activities due to its health benefits [1]. However, injury risk in the lower limb is also relatively high (20–79%) [2]. The use of foot orthoses is one of the most used strategies in the treatment of overuse running injuries [3,4]. Among the injured running population, the use of orthoses has been especially effective to runners with an excessive pronation or a length discrepancy [5], or pathologies such as patellofemoral pain [6] or chronic Achilles tendon injury [7]. Despite the unclear evidence of the effect of foot orthoses in healthy recreational runners, its use is very usual as a mechanism of injury prevention and performance improvement [810]. In addition, runners perceive that footwear, where foot orthoses could be included, is one of the main factors associated with injury risk [11].

It has been observed that foot orthoses are able to reduce impact forces associated with running [12,13], to improve plantar pressure distribution [14,15], comfort perception [14,16] or to lead to kinematic changes [14,17,18]. However, the effect of foot orthoses during running has usually been studied through running trials, which may not be representative enough of the running load experienced by runners during their training sessions and competitions. In this sense, it would be interesting to investigate the effect of foot orthoses in a prolonged race, which should offer a more real vision of the recreational runners’ usual practice [19]. Two previous studies of our research group [20,21] observed that foot orthoses have an effect on spatio-temporal, shock and plantar loading parameters after a prolonged run. The modification of those parameters could be associated with changes in kinematic parameters such as knee flexion and foot eversion [7,22], which are related with injury incidence [23], and justifies its investigation.

In this line, athletes may undergo kinematic modifications during a prolonged run in order to protect themselves from injuries, to maintain their performance level or as a result of fatigue [24]. In scientific literature, the most commonly kinematic adjustments observed are the increase in contact time, stride length, foot eversion and knee flexion [2527]. By contrast, it has been speculated that foot orthoses could modify spatio-temporal kinematics [18] and angular kinematics during running due to the pronation motion control that they offer [7,8]. The type of foot orthosis could also have an influence in kinematic adjustments. Better results are commonly expected with custom-made foot orthoses than with prefabricated foot orthoses, due to its individual adaptation [28,29]. However, some authors have found a decrease in foot eversion with custom-made foot orthoses [9,14,30], while other studies have observed the same effect with prefabricated ones [17,31]. According to one of the last paradigms postulated by Nigg et al. [23,32], the use of footwear (or foot orthoses, in this case) should allow healthy runners to maintain their preferred movement path, so caution should be taken with kinematic alterations, since they will not always be positive. In this sense, there is a lack of information regarding the kinematic effects of foot orthoses during a prolonged run.

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to analyse the effect of different foot orthoses (custom-made, prefabricated and a control condition) on spatio-temporal and angular (knee flexion and foot eversion) kinematic parameters, as well as their behaviour during an intense prolonged run.

Methods

Participants

Twenty-four recreational runners: 18 males and 6 females (mean (standard deviation): age 34 (5) years; body mass 71.4 (12.5) kg; height 1.75 (0.08) m; running training distance 37.5 (12.8) km∕week) participated voluntarily in the present study. Inclusion criteria were: I) no history of lower extremity injuries within the last six months, II) no previous use of foot orthoses, and III) a training routine of at least 15 km/week. All runners signed the written informed consent before participation. The study procedures complied with the requirements established in the Declaration of Helsinki, and the study was approved by the University Ethics Committee (Comité Ético de Investigación en Humanos de la Comisión de Ética en Investigación Experimental de la Universitat de València, approval number H1427706182089).

Foot orthosis conditions and customisation

Participants used three different foot orthosis conditions (Fig 1), on different days, and their order was previously randomised: 1) original insole of the shoe as a control condition; 2) prefabricated foot orthoses, chosen only according to athletes’ foot size (Tecnoped Run, Herbitas, Valencia, Spain); and 3) custom-made foot orthoses built from a three-dimensional representation of the athlete’s feet (OPCT Run, Sidas S.L., Barcelona, Spain). For the customisation of the custom-made foot orthoses, participants stood on a Printlab2 platform (Podiatech, Sidas Technologies, Voiron, France), composed of a pair of silicon vacuum bags that allowed the recreation of the plantar print. Based on the foot print and while the subastragaline joint was in a neutral position, a plaster mould was created, and through a thermo-welding process (Podiatech, Sidas Technologies, Voiron, France) the three dimensional foot orthoses customised to the participant’s foot were built.

Protocol

The study consisted of four tests on different days separated by a week: an initial field test and three laboratory tests, each one with a foot orthosis condition (Fig 2). The aim of the field test was to determine the individual maximal aerobic speed (MAS) in order to calculate the individual running speeds for the laboratory tests. In this first session, participants were asked to run as maximum distance as possible during 5-min on a 400-m track and their individual MAS was determined from the total distance/time [33]. The three laboratory tests consisted of running 20 min on a treadmill (Excite Run 900, TechnoGymSpA, Gambettola, Italy) at 80% of their individual MAS, with a slope of 1%, to simulate the physiological load of an outdoor run [34]. Prior to these running tests, the athletes ran for 10 min at 60% of their MAS as a warm up exercise. Before each laboratory test, the runners trained for a week progressively with the foot orthosis assigned as an adaptation period [20]. In this adaptation period, participants were asked to wear the foot orthoses during the whole day for the first two days and, during the training sessions of these days, only in the warm-up and the cool down. From the third day onwards, if they did not experience discomfort, they had to wear the foot orthoses during their entire training session [35]. In addition, the participants wore their own running footwear in the three tests and in their adaptation periods in order to introduce no further changes in their running customary condition [36]. Perceived exertion was asked by means of the 20-point Borg scale [37], and heart rate was measured (Polar Electro Inc, Woodbury, USA), both at the beginning and the end of the test in order to control the test’s intensity.

Data collection and analysis

During each laboratory test, spatio-temporal kinematic parameters were collected with an optical measurement photoelectric cell system (OptoGait, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) consisting of two bars located on the treadmill [38]. Contact time, flight time, stride length and stride rate were recorded for each foot every 5 min for 15 s during the main part of the running tests (20 min at 80% MAS). Data were extracted at 1000 Hz, and calculated with the OptoGait software program (Version 1.9.9.0, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy).

In addition, foot eversion and right knee flexion were analysed by two high-speed cameras (MotionScope®, Redlake, MASD Inc., San Diego, USA) sampling at 125 Hz. One camera was placed 1.5 m perpendicular to the motion plane and 0.5 m high to measure the frontal plane, and the other camera was placed 1.5 m perpendicular to the right motion plane and 1 m high to measure the sagittal plane. Angular kinematic data were recorded simultaneously with the Optogait, every 5 min for 5 s during the 20 min run. Both cameras were synchronised with the camera software (Redlake MASD MotionScope®, San Diego, USA), and data were analysed using a motion analysis software (Kinescan/IBV System, Valencia, Spain) [39]. Prior to each measurement, optical distortion of the camera lens and calibration of the space were performed using a square object of known dimensions in which four space references were attached. Calibration was performed via bidimensional (2D) direct linear transformation using the motion analysis software. The spline smoothing method was used automatically in the motion analysis software [40].

For the kinematic analysis of the right knee flexion a 2D model of 3 reflective spherical markers (diameter: 16 mm) was used as in previous studies [41]. Markers were placed in the right leg: 1) on the greater trochanter of the femur, 2) on the lateral femoral epicondyle of the knee, and 3) on the lateral malleolus of the ankle. Knee flexion was calculated by the projected α angle between the two segments (thigh and leg) defined by the kinematic model [41] (Fig 3). In addition, foot eversion of both feet was analysed using Clarke et al.’s 2D model of four markers [42,43] placed: 1) on the gastrocnemius (in the axial line of the leg, under the gastrocnemius bifurcation), 2) on the Achilles tendon (at the height of the malleolus), 3) on the upper part of the calcaneus, and 4) on the lower part of the calcaneus. The projected β angle between the two segments (calcaneus and leg) defined by the kinematic model [12,43] was used to calculate foot eversion (Fig 3). To normalise the values, knee flexion and foot eversion angles were calculated from a static standing trial wearing the assigned foot orthoses condition, considered as 0° [41,43].

thumbnail
Fig 3.

Placement of markers and kinematic 2D models used to measure α angle of knee flexion (left) and β angle of foot eversion (right) during running.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.g003

The variables of interest were: knee flexion at contact time, maximum knee flexion during stance phase, knee flexion at toe-off, maximum knee flexion during swing phase, foot eversion at contact time, and maximum foot eversion during the stance phase. These variables were calculated from the average of 5 steps [7,41]. Angles during toe-off and swing phase were measured due to the anti-shock and propulsive properties suggested by the foot orthoses manufacturer.

Statistical analysis

For the statistical analysis, data were analysed using a statistical package (SPSS 20.0, IBM, Armonk, USA). After confirming the normality of the sample in all the variables by the Shapiro Wilks test (P > 0.05), and verifying the sphericity by the Mauchly Sphericity test, the descriptive statistics were extracted. Data were reported as mean (standard deviation (SD)). Then, 2-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed for each dependent variables of the study. Two factors were used as intra-subject factors: foot orthosis condition, with three levels (control, prefabricated and custom-made) and time points with 2 levels in rate of perceived exertion and heart rate (minute 1 and minute 19) and 5 levels in kinematic parameters (minutes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20). For the significant ANOVA models (P < 0.05), the Bonferroni correction post-hoc test was carried out. For the pair significant differences (P < 0.05), the Cohen’s effect size (ES) was computed and classified as small (ES 0.2–0.5), moderate (ES 0.5–0.8) or large (ES > 0.8) [44]. Significance level was stablished at α = 0.05.

Results

Rate of perceived exertion and heart rate values are presented in Table 1. For rate of perceived exertion and heart rate, no significant main effect of condition (P > 0.22) or time-by-condition interaction effect (P > 0.21) was found. However, there was a main effect of time (P < 0.001; ES > 1.0). These results indicate an increase of rate perceived exertion and heart rate at the end of the run regardless of the foot orthosis condition.

thumbnail
Table 1. Perceived exertion rate and heart rate differences between time points (Begin vs. End) in each foot orthosis condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.t001

No differences were observed between feet in spatio-temporal and foot eversion parameters (P > 0.05). Therefore, foot dominance factor was not considered in the repeated measures ANOVA and the mean of both feet is presented for these variables.

Tables 24 show the behaviour of spatio-temporal, knee flexion and foot eversion parameters, respectively, during the running test on each foot orthosis condition. There was no significant main effect of condition (P > 0.36) and no significant effect in the interaction time-by-condition (P > 0.18) in any of the kinematic variables (spatio-temporal, knee flexion and foot eversion parameters) except for a main effect of time only in contact time and maximum eversion during the stance phase (P < 0.01). In contact time, this result implies higher values in minute 10 vs minute 1 (P = 0.02; ES = 0.2) and in minute 20 vs minute 1 (P = 0.02; ES = 0.2), both of them with a small effect size. Moreover, in maximum eversion during the stance phase, this result implies higher values at each time point studied with respect to minute 1 (min 1 vs min 5 (P < 0.001; ES = 0.2); vs min 10 (P < 0.001; ES = 0.2); vs min 15 (P = 0.001 ES = 0.2); vs min 20 (P < 0.001 ES = 0.3), showing in all cases a small effect size. In all the other variables, no significant main effect of time was found (P > 0.44).

thumbnail
Table 2. Spatio-temporal parameters during the 5 time points of the running test with the 3 foot orthosis conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.t002

thumbnail
Table 3. Knee flexion parameters during the 5 time points of the running test with the 3 foot orthosis conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.t003

thumbnail
Table 4. Foot eversion parameters during the 5 time points of the running test with the 3 foot orthosis conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.t004

Percent changes of the biomechanical variables for each participant as well as the number of participants that showed a biomechanically relevant change (±10%) [36] regarding the control condition are provided in the Supplementary File.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to analyse the effects of custom-made and prefabricated foot orthoses on spatio-temporal and angular kinematic parameters during an intense prolonged run. The main result of the study was that there was not a significant main effect of foot orthosis or an interaction between foot orthosis and time on the spatio-temporal and angular kinematic variables assessed during running.

It is well known that during a high intensity run, and consequently, with the development of it, some kinematic alterations previously associated with injury and performance optimisation can occur [24,27]. In this line of thought, it has been suggested that the use of foot orthoses may be a great strategy to counteract those changes, for example through greater control of foot pronation [17,45]. In this sense, in the present work the effect on spatio-temporal and angular kinematic parameters of different foot orthoses were analysed in different time points of an intense prolonged run of 20 minutes of duration, in order to know the behaviour of those parameters throughout this time in a more ecological protocol [19]. Currently, there is little information on the effectiveness of foot orthoses during an intense run. Only the studies of Lucas-Cuevas et al. [20,21] analysed some spatio-temporal parameters in a continuous running protocol, with three different foot orthosis conditions (similar to those used in the present work), but only at the beginning and at the end of the run, without looking at their behaviour throughout the run.

In the present study, and according to the results of these two investigations [20,21], no significant differences in several spatio-temporal parameters under three different conditions of foot orthoses as well as in the interaction between foot orthosis and running time were observed. A previous study has shown that runners are able to achieve a lower metabolic expenditure by adjusting these parameters in an unconscious and individual way [46]. Therefore, these results could explain that the intervention with foot orthoses does not involve a greater energy expenditure, because it is not necessary to modify these parameters with respect to the control condition during an intense prolonged run of 20 minutes. In addition, running with foot orthoses could be affecting other variables such as ground reaction forces, neuromuscular activation or comfort. Previous studies have observed that the use of foot orthoses seems to reduce impacts and to improve the comfort perception of runners in relation to not wearing them [20,21,30]. In this line of thought, foot orthoses could be prescribed seeking these benefits without compromising the athlete’s running technique during an intense prolonged run. Therefore, future studies should address the effect of foot orthoses from a holistic perspective that include the combined assessment of kinematics, comfort, neuromuscular activation, and ground reaction forces.

In the present study, none of the variables of knee flexion was altered throughout the run when using foot orthoses (custom-made and prefabricated) in comparison with the control condition. These results are in agreement with previous studies performed in trials [9,13,45]. This lack of modifications found in knee flexion could be attributed to the idea that the running movement is pre-programmed, and in healthy runners the running pattern normally used could already be the ideal one, without needing an alteration of the same [23,32]. So, its change would lead to an increase in metabolic expenditure [23,32]. Therefore, as the athletes in this study were injury-free, they could have adapted the use of the foot orthoses to their pre-established movement pattern during the training period with them.

In addition, according to Nigg et al. [23,32], an intervention with foot orthoses would be beneficial if it allows to maintain the ideal and preferred movement path. In this line, Lucas-Cuevas et al. [20] used the same foot orthoses and a similar sample population as in the present investigation, and these authors observed lower acceleration rates with the custom-made orthoses compared to the prefabricated ones. This reduction in the acceleration rate, along with the lack of modifications in the knee flexion observed by the present study, could suggest a higher level of protection by the custom-made foot orthoses, as their use would avoid unnecessary alterations in the movement pattern and the kinematic chain to reduce the impacts, which could be harmful [23].

With respect to foot eversion, a large number of studies have analysed the effect of foot orthoses aiming to control pronation, but only in trials or brief run protocols and ultimately finding different results. In the present study, the use of foot orthoses did not produce any change in the maximum foot eversion during stance phase or in the foot eversion at contact time in any of the analysed time points, in comparison with the control condition. Similarly, previous studies with healthy runners also found no changes in foot eversion [36,47]. On the contrary, in studies looking into a running population with pathologies, such as patellofemoral syndrome, anterior knee pain and chronic Achilles tendon injury, changes in foot eversion were observed as a result of using foot orthoses [7,45,48]. These findings suggest that the type of population may influence the variability of results. Therefore, the lack of modifications in these parameters could be explained, as mentioned in the knee flexion, by the fact of having studied athletes without injuries, who would not need to use a rearfoot motion control strategy and who were able to maintain their ideal running pattern during the 20 minutes of run. In addition, while previous authors found decreases in foot eversion with both custom-made [9,14,30], and prefabricated foot orthoses [17,31], no differences were found in this study between the two types of foot orthoses. Therefore, other hypotheses that could justify these results are the specific characteristics of the foot orthoses, which were not specifically manufactured to limit the movement of the ankle [12]; and the protocol used to measure these parameters [8,49].

Regarding the running protocol used in this study, participants reported perceived exertion values between 13 and 15 points as well as heart rate values between 158 and 172 bpm, at the beginning and at the end of the tests, respectively. These values correspond to a somewhat hard/hard intensity, and show that athletes performed the 20 min tests at the anaerobic threshold level [50]. In a previous study [51], no differences were observed between the three foot orthosis conditions in any of the two parameters, neither at the beginning nor at the end of the running protocol. In the present study, however, there was a significant increase in perceived exertion and heart rate at the end of the running protocol in the three foot orthosis conditions, which shows that there was a progression in the intensity of the effort throughout the running protocol.

Despite this fact, in this study no kinematic changes were observed at the different time points of the running test. There was only a main effect of time in contact time and maximum eversion during the stance phase, regardless of foot orthosis condition, which implied certain increases in these variables as the athletes were completing the running tests, with small effect sizes. This lack of changes throughout time could be due to an insufficient level of fatigue. In this sense, the athletes of this study, despite having worked at the anaerobic threshold, may have not reach a sufficient level of muscular fatigue to produce changes in the movement pattern [20]. As a result, it is possible that the modifications or compensatory adaptations could have taken place at the neuromuscular level, without showing changes in the kinematic pattern of movement. Therefore, the intensity of the running tests, which was not hard or long enough to produce movement pattern alterations throughout the run, could be suggested as a possible limitation of the study. Future studies should assess the effect of custom-made and prefabricated foot orthoses on kinematic parameters after longer or more intense protocols.

The main limitation of this study was the use of 2D video to analyse running kinematics instead of using the “gold standard” 3D video analysis. However, it has been stated that 2D video analysis is accurate enough to assess frontal plane variables of treadmill running [52]. Likewise, the study of a single plane in both the knee and the ankle could also be considered a limitation, since other planes could have shown kinematic modifications, as in the knee abduction and adduction movements [49,53]. Another limitation to take into account was the small number of women that took part in the study. A larger sample of female runners would have enabled the analysis of movement patterns by gender, as it is known that women have structural differences which can lead to differences in running mechanics [54] and to a different influence of foot orthoses.

From this point of view, although no differences have been found between the three foot orthosis conditions studied from a grouped perspective, in the studies of foot orthosis and footwear it is common to find a large variability of response among participants, which is masked by the overall results [36]. In the present study, as presented in the Supplementary File, the spatio-temporal parameters have not been affected by inter-subject variability, since most participants have not experienced a relevant change. However, in the angular parameters, the effects of different directions and magnitudes have been observed both among participants as well as within a single individual. In the future, it would be interesting to study if these different responses to a foot orthosis implementation could be grouped by some participant characteristics, such as the gender or the type of foot.

In addition, in future studies it would be interesting to investigate the effect of this foot orthosis intervention in a pathological population or with pain, in order to know if the use of foot orthosis may have some effect in such pathology, with a consequent kinematic alteration. Furthermore, it would also be interesting to analyse the patterns of movement by gender, with an equivalent sample, by the aforementioned differences between men and women. Finally, the study of the long-term effects of a similar intervention of foot orthoses could be of interest in order to understand the influence over time of using orthoses on running mechanics, even with the creation of two groups: one control and another using specific foot orthoses.

Conclusions

The findings of this study show that the use of custom-made and prefabricated foot orthoses during an intense prolonged run does not produce changes in spatio-temporal and angular (knee flexion and foot eversion) kinematic parameters, compared to a control condition. This lack of modifications in the running mechanics of the athletes may suggest that a healthy runner population is able to maintain their ideal movement pattern throughout a 20 minute prolonged run, regardless of the type of foot orthosis used.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Percent changes relative to control foot orthosis condition for spatio-temporal parameters regardless the time points of the running test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.s001

(JPG)

S2 Fig. Percent changes relative to control foot orthosis condition for knee flexion parameters regardless the time points of the running test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.s002

(JPG)

S3 Fig. Percent changes relative to control foot orthosis condition for foot eversion parameters regardless the time points of the running test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.s003

(JPG)

S1 Table. Number of participants experiencing biomechanically relevant reductions (≥10% Reduction), biomechanically relevant increases (≥10% increase), and no change (change between -9.9% and +9.9%) for each variable, regardless the time points of the running test, when wearing prefabricated or custom-made foot orthoses compared to control condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230877.s004

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants for their voluntary participation in this study.

References

  1. 1. Hespanhol Junior LC, Pillay JD, van Mechelen W, Verhagen E. Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Habitual Running on Indices of Health in Physically Inactive Adults. Sports Med Auckl NZ. 2015 Jul 16;45(10):1455–1468.
  2. 2. van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, van Os AG, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Koes BW. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2007 Aug;41(8):469–80; discussion 480. pmid:17473005
  3. 3. Razeghi M, Batt ME. Biomechanical analysis of the effect of orthotic shoe inserts: a review of the literature. Sports Med Auckl NZ. 2000 Jun;29(6):425–38.
  4. 4. Kirby KA. Evolution of Foot Orthoses in Sports. In: Werd MB, Knight EL, Langer PR, editors. Athletic Footwear and Orthoses in Sports Medicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017, p. 19–40.
  5. 5. Gross ML, Davlin LB, Evanski PM. Effectiveness of orthotic shoe inserts in the long-distance runner. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19(4):409–412. pmid:1897659
  6. 6. Saxena A, Haddad J. The effect of foot orthoses on patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003 Aug;93(4):264–71. pmid:12869595
  7. 7. Donoghue O, Harrison A, Laxton P, Jones R. Orthotic control of rear foot and lower limb motion during running in participants with chronic Achilles tendon injury. Sports Biomech. 2008 May 1;7(2):194–205. pmid:18610772
  8. 8. Chevalier TL, Chockalingam N. Foot Orthoses A Review Focusing on Kinematics. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2011 Aug;101(4):341–8. pmid:21817004
  9. 9. MacLean CL, Davis IS, Hamill J. Short- and long-term influences of a custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity dynamics. Clin J Sport Med. 2008;18(4):338–43. pmid:18614885
  10. 10. Jimenez-Perez I, Gil-Calvo M, Priego Quesada J, Aparicio I, Sanchis-Sanchis R, Pérez-Soriano P. Foot Orthosis in Running. In: Materials in Sports Equipment. Elsevier; 2019. p. 451–485.
  11. 11. Saragiotto BT, Yamato TP, Lopes AD. What do recreational runners think about risk factors for running injuries? A descriptive study of their beliefs and opinions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(10):733–738. pmid:25155860
  12. 12. Dixon SJ. Influence of a commercially available orthotic device on rearfoot eversion and vertical ground reaction force when running in military footwear. Mil Med. 2007 Apr;172(4):446–50. pmid:17484322
  13. 13. O’Leary K, Vorpahl KA, Heiderscheit B. Effect of cushioned insoles on impact forces during running. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008 Feb;98(1):36–41. pmid:18202332
  14. 14. Salles AS, Gyi DE. An evaluation of personalised insoles developed using additive manufacturing. J Sports Sci. 2013 Feb 1;31(4):442–50. pmid:23083421
  15. 15. House CM, Waterworth C, Allsopp AJ, Dixon SJ. The influence of simulated wear upon the ability of insoles to reduce peak pressures during running when wearing military boots. Gait Posture. 2002;16(3):297–303. pmid:12443955
  16. 16. Mills K, Blanch P, Vicenzino B. Influence of contouring and hardness of foot orthoses on ratings of perceived comfort. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Aug;43(8):1507–12. pmid:21233775
  17. 17. Sinclair J, Isherwood J, Taylor PJ. The effects of orthotic intervention on multisegment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain in recreational runners. J Appl Biomech. 2015 Feb;31(1):28–34. pmid:25268399
  18. 18. Wilkinson M, Ewen A, Caplan N, O’leary D, Smith N, Stoneham R, et al. Textured insoles reduce vertical loading rate and increase subjective plantar sensation in overground running. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;18(4):497–503. pmid:29529927
  19. 19. MacLean CL, Van Emmerik R, Hamill J. Influence of custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity intralimb coupling during a 30-minute run. J Appl Biomech. 2010;26(4):390–9. pmid:21245498
  20. 20. Lucas-Cuevas AG, Camacho-García A, Llinares R, Quesada JIP, Llana-Belloch S, Pérez-Soriano P. Influence of custom-made and prefabricated insoles before and after an intense run. PloS One. 2017;12(2):e0173179. pmid:28245273
  21. 21. Lucas-Cuevas AG, Pérez-Soriano P, Llana-Belloch S, Macián-Romero C, Sánchez-Zuriaga D. Effect of custom-made and prefabricated insoles on plantar loading parameters during running with and without fatigue. J Sports Sci. 2014 May 13;1–10.
  22. 22. Derrick TR. The effects of knee contact angle on impact forces and accelerations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 May;36(5):832–7. pmid:15126718
  23. 23. Nigg BM, Baltich J, Hoerzer S, Enders H. Running shoes and running injuries: mythbusting and a proposal for two new paradigms: ‘preferred movement path’ and ‘comfort filter’. Br J Sports Med. 2015 Jul 28;bjsports-2015-095054.
  24. 24. Derrick TR, Dereu D, McLean SP. Impacts and kinematic adjustments during an exhaustive run. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(6):998–1002. pmid:12048328
  25. 25. Chan-Roper M, Hunter I, W Myrer J, L Eggett D, K Seeley M. Kinematic changes during a marathon for fast and slow runners. J Sports Sci Med. 2012;11(1):77–82. pmid:24137065
  26. 26. Kellis E, Liassou C. The effect of selective muscle fatigue on sagittal lower limb kinematics and muscle activity during level running. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 Mar;39(3):210–20. pmid:19252259
  27. 27. Koblbauer IF, van Schooten KS, Verhagen EA, van Dieën JH. Kinematic changes during running-induced fatigue and relations with core endurance in novice runners. J Sci Med Sport Sports Med Aust. 2014 Jul;17(4):419–24.
  28. 28. Landorf KB, Keenan AM. Efficacy of foot orthoses. What does the literature tell us? J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2000 Mar;90(3):149–58. pmid:10740997
  29. 29. Werd MB, Knight EL. Insights on Prescribing Athletic Footwear and Orthoses: The Game Plan. In: Athletic Footwear and Orthoses in Sports Medicine. Springer; 2017. p. 165–177.
  30. 30. Mündermann A, Nigg BM, Humble RN, Stefanyshyn DJ. Consistent Immediate Effects of Foot Orthoses on Comfort and Lower Extremity Kinematics, Kinetics, and Muscle Activity. J Appl Biomech. 2004;20(1):71–84.
  31. 31. Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Aran-Ais F, et al. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1331–41. pmid:24699969
  32. 32. Nigg BM, Vienneau J, Smith AC, Trudeau MB, Mohr M, Nigg SR. The Preferred Movement Path Paradigm: Influence of Running Shoes on Joint Movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(8):1641–8. pmid:28277405
  33. 33. García-Pérez JA, Pérez-Soriano P, Llana S, Martínez-Nova A, Sánchez-Zuriaga D. Effect of overground vs treadmill running on plantar pressure: influence of fatigue. Gait Posture. 2013 Sep;38(4):929–33. pmid:23746487
  34. 34. Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of outdoor running. J Sports Sci. 1996 Aug;14(4):321–7. pmid:8887211
  35. 35. Gil-Calvo M, Priego-Quesada JI, Jimenez-Perez I, Lucas-Cuevas A, Pérez-Soriano P. Effects of prefabricated and custom-made foot orthoses on skin temperature of the foot soles after running. Physiol Meas. 2019 Jun;40(5):054004. pmid:31022712
  36. 36. Lewinson RT, Worobets JT, Stefanyshyn DJ. Control conditions for footwear insole and orthotic research. Gait Posture. 2016;48:99–105. pmid:27477717
  37. 37. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):377–381. pmid:7154893
  38. 38. Lee MM, Song CH, Lee KJ, Jung SW, Shin DC, Shin SH. Concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the OPTOGait photoelectric cell system for the assessment of spatio-temporal parameters of the gait of young adults. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(1):81–85. pmid:24567681
  39. 39. Bazuelo-Ruiz B, Durá-Gil JV, Palomares N, Medina E, Llana-Belloch S. Effect of fatigue and gender on kinematics and ground reaction forces variables in recreational runners. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4489. pmid:29576960
  40. 40. Woltring HJ. A Fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentiation. Adv Eng Softw 1978. 1986;8(2):104–113.
  41. 41. De Lucca L, Melo SIL. Relationship between running kinematic changes and time limit at vVO2max. Rev Bras Cineantropometria Amp Desempenho Hum. 2012;14(4):428–38.
  42. 42. Clarke TE, Frederick EC, Hamill CL. The effects of shoe design parameters on rearfoot control in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1983;15(5):376–81. pmid:6645865
  43. 43. Priego Quesada JI, Gil-Calvo M, Jimenez-Perez I, Lucas-Cuevas ÁG, Pérez-Soriano P. Relationship between foot eversion and thermographic foot skin temperature after running. Appl Opt. 2017;56(19):5559–5565. pmid:29047517
  44. 44. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge; 1988.
  45. 45. Eng JJ, Pierrynowski MR. The effect of soft foot orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running. Phys Ther. 1994;74(9):836–844. pmid:8066110
  46. 46. Vernillo G, Savoldelli A, Zignoli A, Skafidas S, Fornasiero A, Torre AL, et al. Energy cost and kinematics of level, uphill and downhill running: fatigue-induced changes after a mountain ultramarathon. J Sports Sci. 2015 Mar 9;0(0):1–8.
  47. 47. Almonroeder TG, Benson LC, O’Connor KM. The Influence of a Prefabricated Foot Orthosis on Lower Extremity Mechanics During Running in Individuals With Varying Dynamic Foot Motion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46(9):749–755. pmid:27494054
  48. 48. Rodrigues P, Chang R, TenBroek T, Hamill J. Medially posted insoles consistently influence foot pronation in runners with and without anterior knee pain. Gait Posture. 2013 Apr;37(4):526–31. pmid:23137595
  49. 49. Nigg BM, Stergiou P, Cole G, Stefanyshyn D, Mündermann A, Humble N. Effect of shoe inserts on kinematics, center of pressure, and leg joint moments during running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(2):314–319. pmid:12569222
  50. 50. Scherr J, Wolfarth B, Christle JW, Pressler A, Wagenpfeil S, Halle M. Associations between Borg’s rating of perceived exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113(1):147–155. pmid:22615009
  51. 51. Lucas-Cuevas ÁG. Influence of an insole intervention on biomechanical parameters during running with and without fatigue [Ph.D. Thesis]. Universitat de València; 2016.
  52. 52. Maykut JN, Taylor‐Haas JA, Paterno MV, DiCesare CA, Ford KR. Concurrent validity and reliability of 2d kinematic analysis of frontal plane motion during running. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015 Apr;10(2):136–46. pmid:25883862
  53. 53. Stackhouse CL, Davis IM, Hamill J. Orthotic intervention in forefoot and rearfoot strike running patterns. Clin Biomech. 2004 Jan;19(1):64–70.
  54. 54. Ferber R, McClay Davis I, Williams DS III. Gender differences in lower extremity mechanics during running. Clin Biomech. 2003 May 1;18(4):350–7.