Differences and relationships between weightbearing and non-weightbearing dorsiflexion range of motion in foot and ankle injuries.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to: (1) identify assessment methods that can detect greater ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (DROM) limitation in the injured limb; (2) determine whether differences in weightbearing measurements exist even in the absence of DROM limitations in the injured limb according to non-weightbearing measurements; and (3) examine associations between DROM in the weightbearing and non-weightbearing positions and compare those between a patient group with foot and ankle injuries and a healthy group. METHODS: Eighty-two patients with foot and ankle injuries (e.g., fractures, ligament and tendon injuries) and 49 healthy individuals participated in this study. Non-weightbearing DROM was measured under two different conditions: prone position with knee extended and prone position with knee flexed. Weightbearing DROM was measured as the tibia inclination angle (weightbearing angle) and distance between the big toe and wall (weightbearing distance) at maximum dorsiflexion. The effects of side (injured, uninjured) and measurement method on DROM in the patient groups were assessed using two-way repeated-measures ANOVA and t-tests. Pearson correlations between measurements were assessed. In addition, we analyzed whether patients without non-weightbearing DROM limitation (≤ 3 degrees) showed limitations in weightbearing DROM using t-tests with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: DROM in patient groups differed significantly between legs with all measurement methods (all: P < 0.001), with the largest effect size for weightbearing angle (d = 0.95). Patients without non-weightbearing DROM limitation (n = 37) displayed significantly smaller weightbearing angle and weightbearing distance on the injured side than on the uninjured side (P < 0.001 each), with large effect sizes (d = 0.97-1.06). Correlation coefficients between DROM in non-weightbearing and weightbearing positions were very weak (R = 0.17, P = 0.123) to moderate (R = 0.26-0.49, P < 0.05) for the patient group, and moderate to strong for the healthy group (R = 0.51-0.69, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DROM limitations due to foot and ankle injuries may be overlooked if measurements are only taken in the non-weightbearing position and should also be measured in the weightbearing position. Furthermore, DROM measurements in non-weightbearing and weightbearing positions may assess different characteristics, particularly in patient group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, cross-sectional study.

The Reliability and Validity of a Novel Ankle Isometric Plantar Flexion Strength Test.

CONTEXT: Strengthening of ankle plantar flexor muscles is one of the important components in the rehabilitation of many lower limb injuries and disorders. However, there are few simple methods to evaluate ankle plantar flexor strength in clinical situations without using equipment. The purpose of this study was to verify the intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability and the concurrent validity of a novel ankle isometric plantar flexion (PF) strength test (PF break test [PFBT]). DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: The intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of the PFBT were evaluated in 57 orthopedic patients and 30 healthy adults. The range of motion of the ankle joint and the number of heel raises were compared between positive and negative PFBT cases. Then, isometric ankle PF torque (ankle PF of 0°, 15°, and 30°) was compared in knee extension and in the 50° flexion position between positive and negative PFBT cases in 30 healthy adults. RESULTS: The intraexaminer reliability (κ) of the PFBT was .81 to .94, and the interexaminer reliability (κ) was .37 to .74. The PFBT positive group had a significantly smaller range of motion in the ankle joint (P < .05) and a significantly lower number of heel raises (P < .001) than the PFBT negative group in orthopedic patients, but no significant differences in healthy adults. The PFBT positive group had less ankle PF torque than the PFBT negative group at all ankle PF angles (P < .01). The isometric PF torque in the end range of ankle PF in knee extension could predict the results of the PFBT and correctly classified 90.0% of cases (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The PFBT is considered a simple and valid method to evaluate isometric ankle PF strength in the clinical setting.