Research About Forefoot Varus

Due to many of the issues raised in the commentary on forefoot varus, there are many issues in the published research on forefoot varus as many of the studies did not apply the textbook definition of forefoot varus; did not load the lateral column when assessing it; or confused it with forefoot supinatus. The interpretation of what the authors of a particular study ‘believe’ forefoot varus is may be different from others beliefs of what it is, so the research needs to be interpreted in that context.

   
Garbalosa et al; (1994)"Of the 234 measured feet, 86.67% had a varus, 8.75% had a valgus, and 4.58% had a neutral forefoot-rearfoot relationship"Did not load the lateral column, so incidence of forefoot varus is artificially inflated, probably by a massive amount (see comments here)
Lufler et al; (2012)"These findings may have implications for the treatment of forefoot varus since they suggest that the source of forefoot varus malalignment may be found in an alterable soft-tissue deformity rather than in an unalterable bony torsion of the talus."Almost all of the specimens in this study were probably forefoot supinatus and not forefoot varus.
McPoil et al; (1987)"Anatomical characteristics of the talus in relation to forefoot deformities"Almost all of the specimens in this study were probably forefoot supinatus and not forefoot varus.
Silva et al; (2014)"These results indicate that FV influences the transverse plane hip movement patterns during a functional weight-bearing activity. Considering that excessive hip internal rotation has been associated with knee injuries, these findings might contribute for a better understanding of the link between FV and injuries of the proximal joints of the lower limb."Did not distinguish between forefoot varus and forefoot suinatus. Conclusion could also be on hip position affectting forefoot position (see this discussion)
Karthikeyan et al (2015)"There is a significant positive correlation between forefoot angle and rearfoot angle and between forefoot angle and navicular drop. Forefoot angles did not affect the maximum AP COP and ML COP excursions or SI in healthy subjects."Not a study on "forefoot varus", but participants would have probably been a mixture of forefoot supinatus and forefoot varus; as they are such different pathomechanics entities, that makes the results pretty much meaningless.
Monaghan et al (2013)"We found that the clinical forefoot angle predicted the forefoot angle at foot contact. Individuals with a large inversion forefoot angle at contact also had greater amplitude of forefoot eversion and everted longer during stance."Did not distinguish between forefoot varus and forefoot supinatus. "Everted longer in stance" could have been the cause of the supinatus or a result of a forefoot varus

External Links:
Forefoot varus (Podiatry Arena)
The effect of forefoot varus on the hip and knee and the effect of the hip and knee on forefoot supinatus … (Running Research Junkie)

Related Topics:
Forefoot supinatus | Forefoot-rearfoot relationship | Forefoot Invertus / Inverted Forefoot | Forefoot Valgus | Dorsiflexed first ray / metatarsus primus elevatus | Forefoot Posting | Forefoot to Rearfoot Relationship | Difference Between Forefoot Varus and Forefoot Supinatus

Page last updated: Sep 4, 2017 @ 11:52 am

Comments are closed.