No abstract

Barefoot running has become a popular research topic, driven by the increasing prescription of barefoot running as a means of reducing injury risk. Proponents of barefoot running cite evolutionary theories that longdistance running ability was crucial for human survival, and proof of the benefits of natural running. Subsequently, runners have been advised to run barefoot as a treatment mode for injuries, strength and conditioning. The body of literature examining the mechanical, structural, clinical and performance implications of barefoot running is still in its infancy. Recent research has found significant differences associated with barefoot running relative to shod running, and these differences have been associated with factors that are thought to contribute to injury and performance. Crucially, long-term prospective studies have yet to be conducted and the link between barefoot running and injury or performance remains tenuous and speculative. The injury prevention potential of barefoot running is further complicated by the complexity of injury aetiology, with no single factor having been identified as causative for the most common running injuries. The aim of the present review was to critically evaluate the theory and evidence for barefoot running, drawing on both collected evidence as well as literature that have been used to argue in favour of barefoot running. We describe the factors driving the prescription of barefoot running, examine which of these factors may have merit, what the collected evidence suggests about the suitability of barefoot running for its purported uses and describe the necessary future research to confirm or refute the barefoot running hypotheses.

Our results suggest that increased BMI is associated with different changes in biomechanical patterns of the knee joint during gait depending on the presence of moderate knee OA.

No abstract

No abstract

This study suggests that some knee joint biomechanical variables are associated with structural knee OA severity measured from radiographs in clinically diagnosed mild to moderate levels of disease, but that pain severity is only reflected in gait speed and neuromuscular activation patterns. A combination of the knee adduction moment and BMI better explained structural knee OA severity than any individual factor alone.

No abstract

Background and purpose — Thresholds of implant migration for predicting long-term successful fixation of tibial components in total knee arthroplasty have not separated cemented and uncemented fixation. We compared implant migration of cemented and uncemented components at 1 year and as the change in migration from 1 to 2 years. Patients and methods — Implant migration of 360 tibial components measured using radiostereometric analysis was compared at 1 year and as the change in migration from 1 to 2 years in 222 cemented components (3 implant designs) and 138 uncemented components (5 implant designs). Results — 1-year maximum total point motion was lower for the cemented tibial components compared with the uncemented components (median = 0.31 mm [0.03–2.98] versus 0.63 mm [0.11–5.19] respectively, p < 0.001, mixed model). The change in migration from 1 to 2 years, however, was equivalent for cemented and uncemented components (mean [SD] 0.06 mm [0.19] and 0.07 mm [0.27] mm respectively, p = 0.6, mixed model). Interpretation — These findings suggest that current thresholds of acceptable migration at 1 year may be better optimized by considering cemented and uncemented tibial components separately as higher early migration of uncemented components was not associated with decreased stability from 1 to 2 years.