3D gait analysis
orthosis, AFOs
Complete kinematic and kinetic data with at least 4 gait cycles were available for 15 participants out of the 20. Technical issues occurred for 3 participants (e.g., they placed both feet on the same force platform preventing kinetic analysis). Only one cycle was available for 2 other participants which prevented appropriate averaging.Three kinematic and kinetic variables were significantly affected by the condition and are presented below.First, peak plantarflexion during early stance was significantly affected by the condition. This peak was significantly lower with the plsAFO than the hAFO. It was also lower with the plsAFO than noAFO, with no difference between the hAFO and noAFO (Table Median (IQR) curves for dorsiflexion/plantarflexion angle, eversion moment and power throughout the gait cycle for each condition (noAFO: shoes only, plsAFO: posterior ankle foot orthosis; hAFO: helical ankle foot orthosis)Second, peak plantarflexion during swing phase was significantly affected by the condition. This peak did not differ between the plsAFO and hAFO. However, it was lower with both AFOs than noAFO (Table Third, dimensionless quasi-stiffness in the first linear part of the plantar/dorsiflexion moment–angle curve was significantly affected by the condition. This stiffness was significantly lower for hAFO than plsAFO. It was also significantly lower for noAFO than for plsAFO and hAFO (Table Results for each participant for non-dimensional quasi stiffness for the three conditions (noAFO: shoes only, plsAFO: posterior ankle foot orthosis; hAFO: helical ankle foot orthosis)No significant between-condition differences were found for any other kinematic and kinetic variables. However, the P-value for the effect of the condition on the dimensionless peak eversion moment in stance phase (which we considered to be representative of medio-lateral ankle stability) was quite low (P = 0.015) (Table 