Table 2.
Comparison of CAST MFM and OFM ability to detect the effect of medial heel bar
| DS1 | SS | DS2 | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sagittal | Coronal | Transverse | Sagittal | Coronal | Transverse | Sagittal | Coronal | Transverse | ||
| Hindfoot (%) | ||||||||||
| CAST MFM | 10.9 | 4.7 | 10.9 | 10.9 | 7.8 | 6.3 | 1.6 | 4.7 | 6.3 | 7.1 |
| OFM | 14.1 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 14.1 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 14.1 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 6.3 |
| No kinematic change | 20.3 | 10.9 | 32.8 | 14.1 | 4.7 | 39.1 | 15.6 | 39.1 | 53.1 | 25.5 |
| Opposite effect | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| Same kinematic change | 54.7 | 79.7 | 56.3 | 60.9 | 87.5 | 51.6 | 67.2 | 50.0 | 40.6 | 60.9 |
| Forefoot (%) | ||||||||||
| CAST | 14.1 | 10.9 | 17.2 | 10.9 | 3.1 | 29.7 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 51.6 | 17.0 |
| OFM | 14.1 | 1.6 | 9.4 | 17.2 | 7.8 | 10.9 | 7.8 | 3.1 | 7.8 | 8.9 |
| No kinematic change | 1.6 | 1.6 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 1.6 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 3.0 |
| Opposite effect | 25.0 | 4.7 | 46.9 | 37.5 | 4.7 | 35.9 | 32.8 | 4.7 | 14.1 | 22.9 |
| Same kinematic change | 45.3 | 81.3 | 21.9 | 34.4 | 84.4 | 18.8 | 50.0 | 78.1 | 20.3 | 48.3 |
DS1 First double support, DS2 Second double support, SS Single support, OFM Oxford Foot Model, CAST Calibrated Anatomical System Technique, MFM Multi-segment foot model