Buttress Plating versus Anterior-to-Posterior Lag Screws for Fixation of the Posterior Malleolus: A Biomechanical Study.
Journal of orthopaedic trauma
Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
2012; 44 (7): 1335-1343
The preferred method of fixation for posterior malleolus fractures remains controversial, and practices vary widely among surgeons. The purpose of this study was to compare anterior-to-posterior (AP) lag screws with posterior buttress plating for fixation of posterior malleolus fractures in a human cadaveric model.Posterior malleolus fractures involving 30% of the distal tibial articular surface were created in 7 pairs of fresh frozen cadaveric ankles. One specimen in each pair was randomly assigned to fixation with either 2 AP lag screws or a one-third tubular buttress plate without supplemental lag screws. Each specimen was then subjected to cyclic loading from 0% to 50% of body weight for 5000 cycles followed by loading to failure. Outcome measures included permanent axial displacement during each test cycle (axial displacement at no load), peak axial displacement during each test cycle (axial displacement at 50% body weight), load at 1-mm axial displacement, ultimate load, and axial displacement at ultimate load.The buttress plate group showed significantly less peak axial displacement at all time points during cyclic loading. Permanent axial displacement was significantly less in the buttress plate group beginning at cycle 200. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups during load-to-failure testing.Posterior malleolus fractures treated with posterior buttress plating showed significantly less displacement during cyclical loading compared with fractures fixed with AP lag screws. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting a fixation strategy for these common fractures. Further research is warranted to investigate the clinical implications of these biomechanical findings.
View details for PubMedID 27755282
Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: A Retrospective Study
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
2012; 44 (7): 1325-1334
This study tests if running economy differs in minimal shoes versus standard running shoes with cushioned elevated heels and arch supports and in forefoot versus rearfoot strike gaits.We measured the cost of transport (mL O(2)·kg(-1)·m(-1)) in subjects who habitually run in minimal shoes or barefoot while they were running at 3.0 m·s(-1) on a treadmill during forefoot and rearfoot striking while wearing minimal and standard shoes, controlling for shoe mass and stride frequency. Force and kinematic data were collected when subjects were shod and barefoot to quantify differences in knee flexion, arch strain, plantar flexor force production, and Achilles tendon-triceps surae strain.After controlling for stride frequency and shoe mass, runners were 2.41% more economical in the minimal-shoe condition when forefoot striking and 3.32% more economical in the minimal-shoe condition when rearfoot striking (P < 0.05). In contrast, forefoot and rearfoot striking did not differ significantly in cost for either minimal- or standard-shoe running. Arch strain was not measured in the shod condition but was significantly greater during forefoot than rearfoot striking when barefoot. Plantar flexor force output was significantly higher in forefoot than in rearfoot striking and in barefoot than in shod running. Achilles tendon-triceps surae strain and knee flexion were also lower in barefoot than in standard-shoe running.Minimally shod runners are modestly but significantly more economical than traditionally shod runners regardless of strike type, after controlling for shoe mass and stride frequency. The likely cause of this difference is more elastic energy storage and release in the lower extremity during minimal-shoe running.
View details for DOI 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318247989e
View details for Web of Science ID 000305473200018
View details for PubMedID 22217565
The Major Locus for Mouse Adenovirus Susceptibility Maps to Genes of the Hematopoietic Cell Surface-Expressed LY6 Family
JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
2010; 184 (6): 3055-3062
This retrospective study tests if runners who habitually forefoot strike have different rates of injury than runners who habitually rearfoot strike.We measured the strike characteristics of middle- and long-distance runners from a collegiate cross-country team and quantified their history of injury, including the incidence and rate of specific injuries, the severity of each injury, and the rate of mild, moderate, and severe injuries per mile run.Of the 52 runners studied, 36 (69%) primarily used a rearfoot strike and 16 (31%) primarily used a forefoot strike. Approximately 74% of runners experienced a moderate or severe injury each year, but those who habitually rearfoot strike had approximately twice the rate of repetitive stress injuries than individuals who habitually forefoot strike. Traumatic injury rates were not significantly different between the two groups. A generalized linear model showed that strike type, sex, race distance, and average miles per week each correlate significantly (P < 0.01) with repetitive injury rates.Competitive cross-country runners on a college team incur high injury rates, but runners who habitually rearfoot strike have significantly higher rates of repetitive stress injury than those who mostly forefoot strike. This study does not test the causal bases for this general difference. One hypothesis, which requires further research, is that the absence of a marked impact peak in the ground reaction force during a forefoot strike compared with a rearfoot strike may contribute to lower rates of injuries in habitual forefoot strikers.
View details for DOI 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182465115
View details for Web of Science ID 000305473200017
View details for PubMedID 22217561
Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners
2010; 463 (7280): 531-U149
Susceptibility to mouse adenovirus type 1 is associated with the major quantitative trait locus Msq1. Msq1 was originally mapped to a 13-Mb region of mouse chromosome (Chr) 15 in crosses between SJL/J and BALB/cJ inbred mice. We have now narrowed Msq1 to a 0.75-Mb interval from 74.68 to 75.43 Mb, defined by two anonymous markers, rs8259436 and D15Spn14, using data from 1396 backcross mice. The critical interval includes 14 Ly6 or Ly6-related genes, including Ly6a (encoding Sca-1/TAP), Ly6e (Sca-2/Tsa1), Ly6g (Gr-1), and gpihbp1 (GPI-anchored high-density lipoprotein-binding protein 1), as well as the gene encoding an aldosterone synthase (Cyp11b2). The Ly6 family members are attractive candidates for virus susceptibility genes because their products are GPI-anchored membrane proteins expressed on lymphoid and myeloid cells, with proposed functions in cell adhesion and cell signaling. To determine interstrain variation in susceptibility and produce additional resources for cloning Msq1, we assayed the susceptibility phenotype of four previously untested inbred mouse strains. Susceptibility of strain 129S6/SvEvTac was subsequently localized to the Ly6 complex region, using polymorphic genetic markers on Chr 15 in a population of 271 (129S6/SvEvTac x BALB/cJ)F(1) x BALB/cJ backcross mice. We identified a major 129S6/SvEvTac susceptibility allele, Msq1(129S6), on Chr 15 in the same region as Msq1(SJL). The results indicate that a major host factor in mouse adenovirus type 1 susceptibility is likely to be a member of the Ly6 gene family.
View details for DOI 10.4049/jimmunol.0903363
View details for Web of Science ID 000275389000034
View details for PubMedID 20164425
Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.
View details for DOI 10.1038/nature08723
View details for Web of Science ID 000273981100049
View details for PubMedID 20111000