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

Abstract

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.