Evaluation and Selection of Footware for the Runner

Evaluation and Selection of Shoe Wear
and Orthoses for the Runner
Michael H. Yamashita, PT
Eastside Sports Rehab, P.O. Box 6908, Bellevue, WA 98008-0908, USA
Every athlete seeks out equipment to maximize his/her sport performance
and minimize risk of injury. The two primary equipment variables in the
runner’s tool box are running shoes and orthoses. Runners repeatedly
subject their bodies to stresses that are equal to two to three times their body
weight [1,2] for a huge number of cycles each time that they participate in
their sport. Few runners are structurally ideal; this results in a range of
compensations that contribute to inefficiencies and, potentially, injury. The
purpose of this article is to educate clinicians regarding the basic evaluation
of the patient to assess appropriate shoe wear and to recognize when over-
the-counter or custom orthosis intervention is necessary. To do this
effectively, a basic understanding of foot and ankle mechanics is essential.
The importance of the subtalar joint/midtarsal joint relationship
The subtalar joint (STJ) consists of the talus superiorly and the calcaneus
inferiorly (Figs. 1–3). With an average axis orientation of 42
to the
transverse plane and 23
to the sagittal plane, the primary component
motions are eversion/abduction and inversion/adduction, with inversion/
eversion occurring in a 1:1 ratio with adduction/abduction based on the
average axis orientation [3–5]. The primary importance of the STJ is that its
position influences midtarsal joint (MTJ) motion. The MTJ consists of the
talonavicular articulation and the calcaneocuboid articulation (see Figs 2
and 3). The talonavicular joint has primary component motions of eversion
and inversion (thus, the longitudinal axis), whereas the calcaneocuboid joint
has primary component motions of dorsiflexion/abduction and plantar-
flexion/adduction (thus, the oblique axis). Note that significant mobility in
all three planes is available in the MTJ. This allows the MTJ to compensate
E-mail address: michaelyamashita@eastsidesportsrehab.com
1047-9651/05/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2005.02.006 pmr.theclinics.com
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am
16 (2005) 801–829

for restrictions or hypermobility in adjacent joints, which often leads to
injury.
Arguably, it is the goal of the running shoe or orthosis to control the
timing, rate, and excursion of STJ motion to allow the joints and muscles in
the lower extremity to function in a range that is closer to that required for
optimal shock absorption and force transmission. STJ position determines
MTJ function because when the STJ is everted during lower extremity
pronation, the MTJ axes become more parallel, and subsequently ‘‘loosen’’
the MTJ to provide shock absorption and to allow accommodation to
variations in the running surface [6]. This should occur simultaneously
through the foot, and distal to proximal in the lower limb from heelstrike
Fig. 1. (A) Anterior view of subtalar joint. (B) Posterior view of subtalar joint.
802 YAMASHITA

through midstance after which the lower extremity should begin to
resupinate from proximal to distal [1]. As the STJ inverts from midstance
through the propulsive phase, the MTJ axes become more perpendicular;
this restricts MTJ motion and provides the lower extremity musculature
with a stiﬀ forefoot [6] with which to propel forward.
When structural deviation, muscle restriction, or weakness interrupts the
normal timing, excursion, or rate of this sequence, running pathomechanics
occur which negatively impact eﬃciency and performance, and ultimately
can result in acute or chronic injury.
Normal pronation
Pronation is a much maligned motion in the runner’s vocabulary. It is,
however, an essential part of the running cycle because it allows for shock
absorption and accommodation for terrain when it occurs during the correct
Fig. 3. Calcaneocuboid joint. (A) Calcaneus. (B) Cuboid. (C) Calcaneocuboid. (D) Talus.
Fig. 2. Talonavicular joint. (A) Talus. (B) Navicular. (C) Talonavicular joint. (D) Calcaneus.
803SHOE WEAR AND ORTHOSES FOR RUNNERS

phase of gait, at an appropriate rate, to the appropriate extent, and
transitions to resupination at the appropriate time. Closed chain pronation
of the STJ is associated distally with talar adduction and plantarflexion as
well as eversion of the calcaneus which unlocks the MTJ and facilitates
accommodation of the foot to the ground. Concurrent with STJ eversion,
tibial internal rotation also occurs [3], which unlocks the knee and allows the
quadriceps to absorb shock. As motion moves more proximal, knee flexion
and valgus occur along with hip internal rotation and adduction.
Normal supination
Closed chain supination of the STJ locks the MTJ to provide a rigid lever
for propulsion. Lower extremity motion, associated with closed chain
supination, includes hip external rotation and abduction, knee extension
and varus, tibial external rotation, talar abduction and dorsiflexion, and
calcaneal inversion. Supination also must occur at the correct phase of gait,
at the correct rate, to the appropriate extent, and with transition to
pronation at the appropriate time for efficient function to occur.
Running versus walking
There are several obvious differences between running and walking that
must be considered when making decisions about appropriate shoe wear
and orthoses. The vertical ground reaction force increases to approximately
three times body weight in the runner; it increases even more when running
hills. There is a narrowing of the base of gait with running [7], which acts as
functional tibial varum and requires increased STJ compensation. Rate and
range of motion in all planes increases; however, motion in the transverse
plane increases at a greater rate than motion in other planes with an obvious
dominance of trunk counterrotation at greater speeds. This necessitates
adequate range of motion to avoid pathologic compensations, particularly
with respect to talocrural joint (TCJ) dorsiflexion, hip extension and hip
internal rotation, and STJ eversion. Additionally, because of the increased
rate of motion, greater eccentric control is required by the entire system.
Keeping this in mind, if the STJ axis is closer to the frontal plane (high axis),
as in a higher arched foot, the proportion of tibial rotation that is associated
with each degree of STJ inversion/eversion becomes higher [4]. Therefore,
greater effort is required to control proximal transverse plane motions that
are associated with pronation.
Other differences to observe between running and walking are the
decrease in vertical excursion of the head, decrease in duration of gait cycle,
decrease in the ratio between time spent in stance phase versus swing phase
[8], and the shift to a float phase versus double limb support. With
increasing speed, location of initial contact generally shifts forward to the
804 YAMASHITA

midfoot, or the forefoot in faster runners, which provides an argument for
purposefully evaluating what features in the midfoot and forefoot of the
running shoe and orthosis would be appropriate.
Shoe anatomy
Every shoe manufacturer has its proprietary technology for cushion and
motion control, but the goal and effect of each brand’s combination of
components is similar. The pertinent anatomy of the running shoe includes
the last (refers to the shape of the shoe), which can be curved, semicurved, or
straight (Fig. 4); the midsole, which can be dual density and composed of
a variety of materials with varying stiffness (Fig. 5); the outsole, which,
again, can be composed of a variety of materials with different durability
and characteristics; the heel counter (Fig. 6), which can vary in stiffness and
contributes to rearfoot control; and the upper, which can have a variety of
materials that can be oriented in a manner to resist the stresses that are
associated with normal or abnormal gait mechanics. The two methods by
which the upper is joined to the midsole also are important. The first is slip
lasting, which refers to a shoe that has a midsole that is stitched to the upper
and allows the stiff foot to move more freely. The second is the board lasted
shoe, which uses a firm fibrous board between the midsole and the upper
and provides a more stable base for function of the flexible foot. The
running shoe also can use a combination of board and slip lasting, which is
referred to appropriately as a combination last.
Fig. 4. Cushion shoe with curved last (Asics; A). Stability shoe with semicurved last (Brooks;
B). Motion control shoe with straight last (Brooks; C).

Shoe types
The runner, essentially, has three broad categories of shoes from which to
pick. These categories are cushion shoes, stability shoes, and motion control
shoes. Features may overlap and shoe fit may vary from brand to brand, but
this provides the individual runner with an excellent opportunity to find just
the right shoe features and fit.
Cushion shoes
Generally, cushion shoes are best for the patient who has an exces-
sively supinatory gait to provide additional shock absorption, although
Fig. 6. Posterior view of motion control shoe heel counter (Brooks). (A) heel counter; (B) dual
density midsole.
Fig. 5. Medial view of motion control shoe with dual density midsole (Brooks). (A) dual density
midsole; (B) heel counter; (C) upper.
806 YAMASHITA

biomechanically efficient runners also can benefit from the cushioning that is
afforded by this type of shoe. Typically, the shoe is built on a curved- or
semicurved-shaped last and will be slip lasted or combination lasted (board-
lasted rearfoot, slip-lasted forefoot) with cushioning in the midfoot and
forefoot. The midsole may be broader through the forefoot and rearfoot,
but narrower through the midfoot, and appears somewhat hourglass-shaped
(Fig. 7A). With the absence of a dual-density midsole and with minimal
additional reinforcing materials overlying the narrower midfoot region, the
cushion shoe allows more pronation to occur to facilitate shock absorption.
This is an obvious contrast to a motion control shoe, which is left broader
through the same area to facilitate greater torsional stability (Fig. 7B). This
difference becomes obvious when performing long axis and sagittal plane
stability tests on the cushion shoe (Fig. 8).
One other important consideration with regard to cushion shoes is
specific fit. The supinator tends to have a C-shaped foot with a high arch,
a wide forefoot, and, often, a clawing of the toes which necessitates a high
and wide toe box.
Stability shoes
Stability shoes are best for the mild to moderate overpronator. Typically,
they are semicurved or straight lasted and usually are combination lasted.
Fig. 7. (A) Bottom of cushion shoe with tapered midfoot shape (Saucony). (B) Bottom of
motion control shoe with broad midfoot (Brooks).

These shoes usually provide a compromise between motion control and
cushioning by using materials that assist in shock attenuation, but also
incorporate some motion control feature, such as a firm heel counter; dual-
density midsole; and, often, a more rigid material imbedded into the midfoot
region of the midsole to facilitate greater torsional rigidity. The denser
material in a dual-density midsole typically is a different color than the rest
of the midsole and is present from the medial side of the rearfoot to the
region just distal to the talonavicular joint, or as far forward as the region
proximal to the metatarsal heads (see Fig. 5).
Motion control shoes
Motion control shoes are best for the moderate to severe overpronator.
They incorporate all of the motion control features of the stability shoe, but
also may include a reinforced heel counter; extension of the denser midsole
material proximal to the metatarsal heads for greater control during the
propulsive phase of gait; and a straight, board-lasted construction. When
assessing the motion control shoe, the medial side of the rearfoot should be
noncompressible by hand, it should not be possible to deform the shoe along
the longitudinal axis when grasping the front of the shoe with one hand and
the back of the shoe with the other, and the shoe should flex in the sagittal
plane through the metatarsal phalangeal region, but not the midfoot
(Fig. 9). Additionally, shoes should be observed from behind to confirm that
the heels are vertical and that symmetry is present from side to side. This
evaluation is as important in assessing an old shoe for replacement, as it is
for assessing the new shoe for purchase, especially considering that it should
Fig. 8. (A) Example of deformation along the longitudinal axis allowed by cushion shoe
(Brooks). (B) Example of sagittal plane midfoot motion allowed by the cushion shoe (Brooks).
808 YAMASHITA

Fig. 9. (A) Example of medial rearfoot noncompressibility in the motion control shoe (Brooks).
(B) Example of longitudinal axis stability associated with the motion control shoe (Brooks). (C)
Example of sagittal plane motion occurring at the metatarsal phalangeal joints versus the
midfoot in the motion control shoe (Brooks).

serve as a neutral and stable base for function of the runner who uses foot
orthoses to facilitate normalization of gait mechanics.
Anatomy of the orthosis
The biomechanical orthotic device essentially is made up of a shell,
rearfoot posting, and forefoot posting (Fig. 10). Other features are used for
specific issues, but these are the three essential components.
The shell is molded from a representation of the foot with the STJ in
a neutral position (see section on casting technique below). The arch height
of the shell can influence the rate of pronation and can provide pro-
prioceptive feedback. In addition, the depth of the heel seat, or, conversely,
the height of the shell that cups around the heel, also influences rearfoot
control. The shell thickness and rigidity also can influence control or
cushioning.
Rearfoot posting is a wedge that is applied to the proximal/plantar aspect
of the shell to gain early control of motion or to provide cushioning at heel
strike and through early stance. The goal is to influence STJ motion and
position, which will influence MTJ function during the transition to
midstance and propulsion. The absence of rearfoot posting, even on
a neutral device, compromises rearfoot stability by allowing rocking of the
shell within the shoe as a result of the rounded contour of the rearfoot
portion of the shell (Fig. 11).
Forefoot posting is a wedge that is applied to the distal/plantar aspect of
the shell to influence deviation from neutral alignment of the bony
structures in the lower extremity. By addressing lower extremity positional
deformity with a forefoot wedge, abnormal STJ compensation is prevented;
this decreases compensatory pathomechanics distally and proximally. The
most obvious example of this is the forefoot which is in varus when the STJ
is in a neutral position. This scenario presents a situation in which the
forefoot is off the ground when the STJ is in neutral and the condyles of the
calcaneus are on the ground (Fig. 12A). As the foot shifts into midstance
Fig. 10. Side view of orthotic. (A) shell; (B) rearfoot post; (C) forefoot post to sulcus; (D) heel
seat.
810 YAMASHITA

and propulsion, the STJ must evert to allow the forefoot to contact the
ground (Fig. 12B). This unlocks the MTJ just as it should be locking to
provide a rigid lever for propulsion. This results in prolonged pronation
which forces the first ray (first cuneiform and first metatarsal) into
Fig. 11. Posterior view of orthotic without rearfoot posting.
Fig. 12. Neutral STJ cast representation of forefoot varus deformity. (A) Neutral STJ position
cast reveals forefoot varus relative to a vertical rearfoot. (B) Neutral casts of a patient who has
forefoot varus deformity that represents STJ eversion compensation at midstance.

a dorsiflexed position and excessively loads the second metatarsal. In this
situation, the forefoot post builds the ground up to the forefoot, thereby
preventing the need for compensatory STJ eversion at midstance and
facilitating a stable MTJ and first ray during the propulsive phase of gait.
Types of devices
There are two types of orthotic devices. First, there is the neutral over-
the-counter device which affords a nonspecific arch contour that may assist
in some motion control, proprioceptive feedback, and cushioning, but fails
to address positional/structural deformity and the obligatory compensations
that result. In an excessively pronatory gait, the arch simply acts as
a buttress to slow the compensatory pronation. In contrast, biomechanical
orthotic devices address the source of the compensation and slow the rate
and extent, and alter the timing of the compensation using rearfoot and
forefoot posting to build the ground up to the foot. In addition, the shell
acts as a support for compensatory midfoot motion. In this way, the arch
contour of the custom device must only act as a secondary support, rather
than a primary one, because the posting facilitates more appropriate STJ
and MTJ function. This results in less compensatory inferior and medial
navicular excursion (navicular drop) as well as a stable first ray in the case of
early, excessive, and prolonged pronation.
Custom devices for the runner can be classified by stiffness. There are rigid,
semirigid, and flexible devices. The easiest way to think about appropriate
rigidity is that the rigid foot requires a more flexible device and a more flexible
foot requires a more rigid device; the goal is to provide adequate stability to
the flexible foot and adequate cushioning to the stiff foot.
Importance of appropriate casting technique
Because shell contour significantly affects midfoot control, it is important
to evaluate an often overlooked aspect of orthosis fabrication—the casting
technique that is used by the dispensing provider. This plays a pivotal role in
the ultimate comfort and function of the custom device.
A variety of techniques are used to capture the contour of the foot to
fabricate custom orthotic devices. The two broad categories are weight
bearing (eg, stepping into a box with compressible foam) and nonweight
bearing (eg, using plaster splints to create a slipper cast of the foot). In each,
the key is to capture the contour of the foot with the STJ in a neutral
position. This assures that the contour of the device at midstance matches
the arch contour of the patient. Obviously, the weight-bearing arch contour
that is dictated by the finished device depends on the posting angles that are
specified by the practitioner; they need to support a neutral STJ position at
midstance to normalize gait mechanics.
812 YAMASHITA

Posting angles—the angles of the wedges that are applied to the rear and
forefoot of the devices—are the predominant influences on STJ position in
weight bearing; however, positioning the STJ in neutral while capturing the
contour of the foot for orthosis fabrication is essential for comfort. If the
foot is pronated, the resultant device has a lower than ideal arch contour,
whereas if the foot is supinated, the arch height is higher. Less support is
provided during the stance phase with the lower arch contour, and increased
compression and discomfort result from a device with an excessively
elevated arch contour. Capturing the pathologically compensated position
of the foot in midstance, whether that tendency is toward pronation or
supination, has the unfortunate consequence of a device contour that
reflects and facilitates the compensated position in midstance. These errors
are possible with weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing techniques, so the
importance of conscientious maintenance of STJ neutral position when
casting cannot be overstressed.
For this reason, it is the author’s bias to use nonweight-bearing casts
because it is simple to maintain STJ neutral position by palpating the head
of the talus for equal medial and lateral prominence with the thumb and
forefinger of one hand while applying a mild dorsiflexion force over the
fourth and fifth metatarsal heads to facilitate neutral talocrural joint
dorsiflexion (Fig. 13). This simulates the foot and ankle orientation in
midstance with the STJ in a neutral position [9]. In contrast, it is difficult to
control the forefoot with a weight-bearing casting technique, such as a foam
box into which the patient steps. In this situation, the forefoot may tend to
move in the direction that it moves commonly (ie, it tends to move into its
typical position of compensation). This results in an inaccurate represen-
tation of the foot at midstance with the STJ in a neutral position and
reduces the comfort and effectiveness of the device.
Fig. 13. Neutral STJ casting technique.

The subjective evaluation
As with all patients, the subjective evaluation of the runner gives
significant clues as to what the objective evaluation will reveal. The question
of current symptoms and previous injuries gives a broader picture of the
patient’s history of tolerance for running as well as possible biomechanical
contributing factors. Chronic symptoms, insidious onset of symptoms, and
family history may point out the likelihood that structural issues contribute
to running pathomechanics. In contrast, traumatic onset or first time injury
may indicate injury in the presence or absence of additional biomechanical
factors. Recent initiation of a running program, overtraining, road camber
and surface type also can contribute to injury without a bias toward
pathomechanics as a primary contributing factor.
All runners’ training schedules should be scrutinized for appropriate
mileage progression and appropriate rest. Intensity parameters consist of
distance, speed, hills, terrain, and duration. Speed of the individual runner
also should be considered because of the different predominant influences
that are associated with running gait versus jogging or walking.
Additionally, timely replacement of running shoes should be stressed to
maintain appropriate cushioning and control. The predominant industry
recommendation has been to replace shoes approximately every 300 miles or
6 months; however, Bates and Stergiou [10] suggested that study findings are
variable on this point. It is important to keep in mind that breakdown can
occur more or less rapidly, depending on weight, weather conditions,
terrain, and other factors.
Objective evaluation
Gross evaluation of gait
Initial objective evaluation should start with observation of gait while the
patient is wearing shoes as well as in bare feet. Several laps up and down a long
hallway should be observed, while focusing on one area of the body at a time
for each lap. Watch for asymmetries, abnormal compensation, and any
obvious deviation in any plane from a smooth and efficient gait. Examples
of obvious deviation include excessive frontal plane motion of the trunk,
excessive lumbar lordosis, asymmetrical arm swing, decreased transverse
plane motion of the pelvis, obvious hip internal rotation associated with
femoral anteversion, rapid and excessive internal rotation at the knees, early
heel rise (typically associated with greater vertical displacement of the head),
excessive out toeing/in toeing, excessive rearfoot eversion in midstance,
medial/lateral heel whip, or a wide base of support. Also, listen for an abnor-
mally loud gait, which often correlates with observation of a supinatory gait as
a result of the decreased shock absorption that is afforded by this gait pattern.
These same issues should be assessed with evaluation of running gait,
keeping in mind the previously outlined differences between walking and
814 YAMASHITA

running. A treadmill and a camera with slow motion capability are helpful
for breaking down running gait because of the speed at which motion
occurs; however, in the context of an office visit, a few trips down the
hallway should reveal the more obvious compensations. Patients who have
history and evaluation findings that are suggestive of biomechanical issues,
but more subtle gait deviation on visual assessment, are obvious candidates
for more formal biomechanical evaluation.
This is especially important when the practitioner recognizes that some
observable structural issues may or may not correlate consistently with
a particular gait pattern because people have varied compensatory strategies
for the same structural issues. Similarly, issues, such as a hallux valgus
deformity, can stem from a wide variety of root causes. The primary issue is
excessive pronation late during the propulsive phase; however, this can
occur with an extremely pronatory gait, or with a supinatory gait that shifts
into abrupt pronation late during the propulsive phase to influence the
return of the center of gravity to a more midline position.
The specialist in biomechanical evaluation observes gait deviations and
assesses the patient for specific contributory issues. Gait evaluation, in the
context of this article, should alert the practitioner to any obvious gait
deviations while walking and running, and should establish recognition of
a tendency toward excessive pronation, supination, or a neutral gait. With
experience, this also gives rise to an awareness of possible biomechanical
factors which contribute to pathologic compensations.
Simple weight-bearing tests
Weight-bearing tests can reveal a great deal about planes of dysfunction.
When asking the patient to perform a single leg squat (Fig. 14A) or to
maintain single leg stance (Fig. 14B), watch for quantity of movement and
quality of movement at the ankle, knee, hip, and lumbar spine. This reveals
strategies to affect stability or to compensate for weakness or motion
restriction. Also note any pain complaint. Typical compensation can include
things, such as trunk lean and clawing of the toes. Also, watch for
a tendency for the knee to shift into valgus and internal rotation, which
often is concurrent with a tendency to adduct the hip in the case of an
excessive pronator. Conversely, a supinator tends to lack motion into
weight-bearing dorsiflexion and compensates with weight bearing back onto
the heels with a concurrent forward lean of the trunk. A tendency to weight
bear onto the lateral edge of the foot also is noted.
Other weight-bearing tests include single leg stance reach tests with the
upper extremity or nonweight-bearing lower extremity in various directions
(Fig. 15), while watching for quantity and quality of movement. Sit to stand
(Fig. 16) and stand to squat tests (Fig. 17) can be performed with an eye for
arch and rear foot motion and excursion. The same areas also can be
observed with heel raises. Standing trunk rotation testing (Fig. 18) should

result in immediate ipsilateral supination at the foot and contralateral
pronation. Although many different tests can reveal a tremendous amount
of information about patient movement strategies, it is important to assess
which tests provide the most pertinent information within the limited time
that is available for evaluation. The most obvious strategy is to use the tests
that challenge the patient to function in the most likely planes of
dysfunction, based on the subjective evaluation and gait analysis.
Standing evaluation
The static weight-bearing examination also reveals valuable information
about positional deformity, compensated positions, flexibility, and other
factors that are pertinent to function. Initially, the overall structure should
be observed from all sides while looking for any obvious deviations of
structure in any plane. Any significant weight issue, whether due to obesity
or simply a larger frame, should be noted because of the additional load that
is placed on joints that are less than ideal in orientation, as well as the
likelihood of more rapid breakdown of shoes. Obvious static structural
associations with pronatory stress include an abducted forefoot position,
significant inferior excursion of the arch in nonweight bearing versus weight
bearing, an everted rearfoot position in relaxed standing (compensation for
a forefoot varus deformity), tibial varum, genu varum, and genu valgum.
Observable deviations that are associated with supinatory stresses include
an adducted forefoot position, an inverted rearfoot position, and pes cavus.
Fig. 14. (A) Single leg squat. (B) Single leg stance.
816 YAMASHITA

One extremely important weight-bearing assessment is that of passive
hallux dorsiflexion. This relates to the windlass mechanism in which the
hallux undergoes passive dorsiflexion after heel off, and thus, tensions
the plantar fascia, elevates the arch, inverts the calcaneus, approximates
the heel to the forefoot (Fig. 19), and increases midfoot stability while
decreasing tension in the ligaments of the midfoot [11]. If the STJ remains
excessively pronated during late stance, midfoot ligamentous stress is
increased, and hallux dorsiflexion is inhibited because the midfoot remains
pronated and unstable. In this scenario, the arch fails to elevate and the
peroneus longus is in a disadvantaged position, and, thus, is unable to
plantarflex and stabilize the first ray to the ground [4,12,13]. Consequently,
Fig. 15. (A–E) Single leg stance reach tests with upper and lower extremities.

passive hallux dorsiﬂexion is unable to overcome the force that is
exerted by pronatory tensioning of the plantar fascia. Michaud [14]
further described the additional inability of peroneus longus to dorsiﬂex
and evert the cuboid; this results in failure to maintain calcaneocuboid
joint stability during propulsion. This illustrates the importance of
assessing in nonweight-bearing and weight-bearing positions because of
the compensations that may only be obvious when the foot is on the
ground.
Fig. 15 (continued )
818 YAMASHITA

Strength tests
Standard lower extremity strength testing is an important evaluation
tool. It oﬀers information regarding deﬁciencies in strength that may
contribute to gait pathomechanics. Conversely, gait pathomechanics can
put lower extremity musculature at a disadvantage and lead to patterns of
Fig. 16. (A,B) Sit to stand test.
Fig. 17. (A,B) Stand to squat test.

weakness as a consequence. Typical weakness that is associated with an
excessively pronatory gait includes posterior tibialis, tensor fascia lata, and
gluteus medius weakness. When observed, the question of source versus
symptoms must be addressed. Did the weakness allow excessive pronation
or did a structural issue lead to compensatory pronation, and thus, put these
muscles at a disadvantage?
Fig. 18. (A–C) Standing trunk rotation test.
820 YAMASHITA

Flexibility tests
Assessment of flexibility also is important in that if adequate flexibility
for normal gait is not present, the body is forced to compensate (eg, if
talocrural joint dorsiflexion is restricted, dorsiflexion occurs through the
next joint that allows a large component motion of dorsiflexion, in this case,
the oblique axis of the MTJ). The result of this compensatory gait
inefficiency is a greater likelihood of injury.
Nonweight-bearing observation
In addition to the standard and specific functional evaluation, the
nonweight-bearing examination can offer valuable information to the
practitioner. The nonweight-bearing arch height can be observed and
compared with that observed in weight bearing, leg length discrepancy can
be assessed, and the presence of tibial and femoral torsions can be evaluated.
Hallux dorsiflexion range in nonweight bearing can be assessed and
compared with available range in weight bearing to determine the difference
Fig. 19. (A,B) The windlass mechanism. Representation of arch elevation associated with
passive hallux dorsiflexion.

between a functional hallux limitus that is due to impairment of the windlass
mechanism, and a true hallux limitus or rigidus.
When observing the plantar aspect of the foot, the presence of callus
patterns should be noted, and the presence of skin folds over the plantar
aspect of the feet (an indication of hypermobility) can be observed.
Additionally, recognition of ankle or forefoot equinus deformity, presence
or absence of a plantarflexed first ray, and forefoot varus or valgus
deformity can be appreciated in prone with the STJ maintained in neutral.
Assessment of these issues can help the provider to recognize the reasons
behind any gait deviations or functional compensations that are observed
during the weight-bearing aspects of evaluation.
Clinical decision making
Following physical examination of the patient, the practitioner should
have a basic idea of whether the patient tends toward a pronatory,
supinatory, or neutral gait. In addition, recognition of some of the factors
that contribute to gait deviation should be obvious. The next step is to
evaluate the severity of any gait pathomechanics and decide what type of
shoe should be prescribed to the patient and whether an over-the-counter or
custom orthosis would be helpful.
As any experienced practitioner knows, the most important issue in
treating any pathology is recognition of the source versus the symptoms.
The chronicity of pathology in the runner who has biomechanical issues
may point to a history of only focal symptomatic treatment. This can be
effective transiently; however, without addressing the distal or proximal
cause of the offending pathomechanics, recurrent injury or pain is inevitable.
The excessive pronator
Typical signs and symptoms
Excessive pronators present with a broad range of pathology (Box 1). They
can be plagued by a variety of injuries in different areas, or experience chronic
injury of the same structures. This depends on compensatory strategies and
the integrity of the areas that are influenced by pronatory dysfunction at any
point in time. Again, the key feature to watch for with any biomechanical
issue is chronicity.
Often, the overpronator presents with early, excessive, and prolonged
pronation which results in characteristic callus patterns. Ordinarily, a pinch
callus over the medial hallux can be observed, which is due to the patient
propelling medially over a functional hallux limitus, as well as diffuse
callusing over the ball of the foot. In this situation, hallux dorsiflexion is
limited because of the pathologic influence of prolonged pronation on the
windlass mechanism. Additionally, when the STJ remains pronated through
822 YAMASHITA

the propulsive phase of gait, the MTJ fails to lock and the peroneus longus
is placed at a mechanical disadvantage. Therefore, instead of providing
a plantarflexion force to maintain first ray stability for propulsion, the
peroneus longus allows the ground to push the first ray up into dorsiflexion;
this results in excessive loading of the other metatarsals. Consequently,
callusing over the second, and sometimes, the third and fourth metatarsal
heads can be observed.
Other issues that often are present include weakness of hip abductors and
external rotators, as well as peroneus longus and posterior tibialis, due to
the excessive loads that are placed upon these structures by this inefficient
gait pattern.
Contributing factors
Structural issues that contribute to excessive pronation include rear foot
varus deformity, forefoot varus deformity, equinus deformity, tibial or
femoral torsion, and genu varus or valgus. Common contributory flexibility
issues include TCJ dorsiflexion restriction and functional forefoot varus or
supinatus [15,16]. The latter is a supinatory soft tissue restriction along the
long axis of the MTJ which mimics the osseous forefoot varus deformity.
Appropriate shoes/orthoses
Depending on the severity of overpronation, stability shoes or motion
control shoes are indicated. In the case of the moderate to severe
overpronator, a motion control shoe is preferred. If there are not multiple
areas of involvement and there is not a history of chronic injury with activity,
an over-the-counter arch support may be helpful in slowing excessive midfoot
Box 1. Typical pathology of the overpronator
Stress fracture
Neuroma
Hallux abducto valgus
Achilles tendonitis
Medial tibial stress syndrome
Anterior shin splints
Tarsal tunnel syndrome
Patellofemoral tracking
Patellar tendonitis
Pes anserine tendonitis/bursitis
Iliotibial band tendonitis
Sacroiliac joint pathology
Lumbar spine pathology

compensation in the mild overpronator. If, however, the patient has
experienced a variety of symptoms over the course of his/her running career,
if there is an issue of chronicity, or if obvious structural issues are dictating
functional compensation, a formal biomechanical evaluation should be
pursued. Custom biomechanical orthoses, which are fabricated based on
evaluation by a knowledgeable practitioner, should facilitate normalization
of running mechanics, and thereby, assist in the resolution of the presenting
issue and decrease the likelihood of injury in the future.
The supinator
Typical signs and symptoms
The supinator is characterized by a gait pattern that lacks shock
absorption. Because the STJ remains inverted through much of the stance
phase, the midfoot remains stiff and fails to assist in cushioning the impact
that is associated with early stance. Typically, this is a loud gait because of
the abrupt rate of loading. This gait pattern often is marked by callosities
over the first and fifth metatarsal heads in the case of a forefoot valgus
deformity. In this case, the forefoot sits in valgus relative to the rearfoot
when the STJ is in neutral; as the forefoot loads, the first ray contacts the
ground first and forces the STJ to compensate into an inverted position.
Consequently, the fifth metatarsal head loads rapidly, only to shift abruptly
medially as the STJ pronates to shift the center of gravity back toward
midline at heel off [17]. This appears as a lateral heel whip.
The tenuous balance that is afforded by the rate and duration of lateral
column loading, as well as the lack of shock absorption that is associated
with this gait pattern results in the characteristic array of pathology that is
noted in Box 2.
Contributing factors
The typical supinator has a high arched foot which tends to be stiff and
a forefoot valgus deformity often is present. It also is common to see
a concurrent rigid plantarflexed first ray.
Another scenario is the uncompensated forefoot varus deformity in
which the STJ lacks adequate eversion to compensate for the varus position
of the forefoot. This foot type maintains a supinated position through
stance phase with the lateral foot remaining loaded late into the propulsive
phase; this creates a characteristic callus pattern along the lateral border of
the foot. This necessitates an abrupt shift of the center of gravity toward
midline during terminal stance which sharply loads the medial hallux.
Obviously, this tenuous balance, which is provided by weight bearing on
the lateral aspect of the foot, is exacerbated in a patient who has
a concurrent tibial or genu varum because of the absence of pronatory
compensation in the STJ.
824 YAMASHITA

Appropriate shoes/orthoses
The issue with the supinator is to facilitate motion and shock attenuation.
The shoe of choice, therefore, is the cushion shoe. Cushion insoles also may
be helpful; however, if an obvious structural issue contributes to this gait
pattern, as well as chronic pathology, a custom device is essential.
The neutral runner
The neutral runner tends to visit the clinic primarily as a result of trauma,
inappropriate training progression, terrain issues, ﬂexibility issues, or
weakness. A stability shoe with a good combination of motion control
and shock absorption is appropriate for this type of runner, but a cushion
shoe also may be well-tolerated. Considerations should include mileage,
terrain, and body weight when selecting more or less stable shoes on the
spectrum.
Evaluating the orthosis
When evaluating the orthoses of a patient who arrives in the clinic for the
ﬁrst time, gait and quality of functional weight-bearing test performance
should be observed. Next, the contour of the device should be observed and
matched to the nonweight-bearing foot in a neutral STJ position. A
common casting error is to capture the contour of the foot in a compensated
position, which, for the overpronator, means that the device contour will be
lower than the arch when assessed in the manner that was described
Box 2. Typical pathology of the supinator
Chronic ankle sprains
Sublexed peroneal tendons
Plantar fasciitis
Metatarsalgia
Stress fractures
Hammer toes
Claw toes
Haglund’s deformity
Sesamoiditis
Peroneal tendonitis
Iliotibial band tendonitis
Sacroiliac joint pathology
Lumbar pathology

previously. Cursory evaluation, based on the previous sections should be
performed to assess the sources of weight-bearing pathomechanics, as well
as to evaluate how well the devices resolve the compensatory mechanics.
Full correction to an idealized gait is not necessarily the goal, but rather,
gait pathomechanics should be controlled well enough to facilitate the
patient’s ability to function without an injury-inducing level of stress.
The combined effect of the orthosis and the shoe also needs to be
considered when evaluating function. An aggressive device with motion
control shoes may overcorrect a mild to moderate pronator, whereas
a cushion shoe or a 2-year-old motion control shoe fails to provide an
appropriate platform for comfort and function of a severe overpronator,
even with appropriate orthoses.
One must recognize that orthoses influence major changes in the patient’s
weight-bearing environment and that they generally do not feel completely
comfortable for several weeks. This emphasizes the importance of a gradual
break-in process with wearing time increasing by 1 to 2 hours per day,
depending on tolerance. Diffuse arch soreness and general lower extremity
muscle soreness is to be expected, but joint pain in the lower extremity or
spine indicates that the device may require alteration. Additionally, if the
patient reports return of symptoms following a period of initial relief with
the devices, undercorrection may be the problem. Referral back to the
dispensing provider in each of these cases often results in a quick and
effective resolution to the problem.
Devices for the excessive pronator
When evaluating a custom device for the overpronating runner, the most
obvious issue is whether the device is addressing the source of the problem.
For example, if the structural issue is a forefoot varus deformity, the posting
should extend to the sulcus, just beyond the metatarsal heads to control the
forefoot position through the propulsive phase. If, however, the rearfoot is
the sole issue, a standard length device that extends only to the region
behind the metatarsal heads is adequate, as long as the rearfoot varus
deformity is addressed appropriately (Fig. 20). Forefoot posting is not
necessary in this circumstance, but a deep heel seat is an extremely helpful
tool in the overpronator to control excessive rearfoot motion that is due to
STJ compensation.
Another common issue that drives excessive pronation is one of
structural deformity that is extrinsic to the foot, such as tibial varum or
femoral anteversion. This type of deformity exerts influence throughout the
stance phase of gait and must be addressed accordingly, with posting
material used in the rearfoot and extending forward to the sulcus. A
common error is to post standard length for a patient who has extrinsic
issues or forefoot varus issues. This results in abrupt pronatory pathome-
826 YAMASHITA

chanics late during the propulsive phase, which force transverse plane
compensation proximally. This abrupt internal rotation results in increased
medial stress to the knee and lateral stress to the hip, which can affect the
plantar fascia, pes anserine and trochanteric bursae, and the sacroiliac and
lumbar zygapophyseal joints.
Devices for the supinator
In the case of an uncompensated forefoot varus, a softer device with
medial forefoot posting to address the deformity can help to decrease the
lateral instability by distributing the forces through the entire foot versus
tenuously on the lateral aspect. With the forefoot valgus, a standard length
device with a few degrees of forefoot valgus posting can facilitate more
normal pronation by building the ground up to the lateral side of the foot. A
first ray cut-out takes away material where the first metatarsal head hits the
device. This allows for more time before the first ray contacts the ground
and, thereby, decreases STJ compensation into supination as forefoot
loading occurs. Rearfoot control also must be considered, using a deep heel
seat to control the rearfoot in preparation for forefoot loading as well.
Summary
Many patients have been fit with orthoses and arrive to the clinic stating
that their symptoms failed to resolve, or were even worse with use of the
Fig. 20. (A) Standard length orthotic. (B) Orthotic posted to the sulcus.

devices. Upon further questioning, they reveal that they may or may not
have been evaluated thoroughly, according to the areas of evaluation that
were explored in this article. Furthermore, they may have been casted in
weight bearing, and often by a technician, instead of the medical provider.
They usually have no awareness of having been maintained in a neutral STJ
position for casting and generally remark that they were not educated at all
regarding the contributory factors for their particular gait pathomechanics
or pathology.
Providers who dispense custom foot orthoses include physicians, physical
therapists, podiatrists, pedorthotists, and chiropractors. Because of the
number of disciplines that consider foot orthoses as part of their scope of
practice, the presence of a frustrating lack of uniformity with respect to
knowledge base, evaluation skills, casting skills, and treatment philosophy
within this population is understandable. Even the language that is used to
describe positions, motions, deformity, and pathology vary based on
specialty and speciﬁc training. Not surprisingly, unacceptable disparities are
present, even within the same disciplines. This huge variability undermines
the credibility of those practitioners who thoughtfully and deliberately
fabricate devices based on sound biomechanical principles. It behooves the
referring provider, as well as his/her patients, to know the background of,
and the evaluation procedures that are used by, the practitioner who will be
evaluating the patient for custom foot orthoses.
References
[1] Mann RA. Biomechanics of running. In: Nicholas JA, Hershman EB, editors. The lower
extremity and spine in sports medicine, vol. 1. St Louis (MO): The C.V. Mosby Company;
1986. p. 395–411.
[2] Cavanagh PR. The biomechanics of running and running shoe problems. In: Segesser B,
Pforringer W, editors. The shoe in sport. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc.; 1989.
p. 3–15.
[3] Michaud TC. Structural and functional anatomy of the foot and ankle. Foot orthoses and
other forms of conservative foot care. Newton (MA): Thomas C. Michaud; 1997. p. 1–25.
[4] Novick A. Anatomy and biomechanics. In: Hunt GC, McPoil TG, editors. Physical therapy
of the foot and ankle. 2nd edition (Clinics in Physical Therapy). New York: Churchill
Livingstone Inc.; 1995. p. 11–46.
[5] Isman RE, Inman VT. Anthropometric studies of the human foot and ankle. Technical
Report 58. San Francisco (CA): Biomechanics Laboratory, University of California, San
Francisco; 1968.
[6] Mann RA. The biomechanics of running. In: Mack RP, editor. American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons Symposium on The Foot and Leg in Running Sports. St Louis (MO):
The C.V. Mosby Co; 1982. p. 1–29.
[7] Bates BT, Stergiou N. Normal patterns of walking and running. In: Subotnick SI, editor.
Sports medicine of the lower extremity. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1999.
p. 157–65.
[8] Mann RA, Hagy JH. Biomechanics of walking, running, and sprinting. Am J Sports Med
1980;8(5):345–50.
828 YAMASHITA

[9] Fromherz WA. Examination. In: Hunt GC, McPoil TG, editors. Physical therapy of the foot
and ankle. 2nd edition (Clinics in Physical Therapy). New York: Churchill Livingstone Inc.;
1995. p. 81–113.
[10] Bates BT, Stergiou N. Forces acting on the lower extremity. In: Subotnick SI, editor. Sports
medicine of the lower extremity. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1999.
p. 167–85.
[11] Hicks JH. The mechanics of the foot: II. J Anat 1954;88:25–31.
[12] Hunt GC, Brocato RS, Cornwall MW. Gait: foot mechanics and neurobiomechanics. In:
Hunt GC, McPoil TG, editors. Physical therapy of the foot and ankle. 2nd edition (Clinics in
Physical Therapy). New York: Churchill Livingstone Inc.; 1995. p. 47–80.
[13] Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH. Normal and abnormal function of the foot. Los Angeles
(CA): Clinical Biomechanics; 1977.
[14] Michaud TC. Ideal motions during the gait cycle. In: Foot orthoses and other forms of
conservative foot care. Newton: Thomas C. Michaud; 1997. p. 27–56.
[15] Michaud TC. Biomechanical examination. In: Foot orthoses and other forms of
[16] Donatelli RA. Abnormal Biomechanics. In: Donatelli RA, editor. The biomechanics of the
foot and ankle. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company; 1990. p. 34–72.
[17] Michaud TC. Abnormal motions during the gait cycle. In: Foot orthoses and other forms of

Evaluation and Selection of Footware for the Runner

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Evaluation and Selection of Footware for the Runner (20)

More from Kevin Christie (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluation and Selection of Footware for the Runner