Functional Ankle Instability and the Peroneals

tumblr_mgcawrDlDn1qhko2so1_400.jpg

Lots of links available here with today’s blog post. please make sure to take your time and check out each one (underlined below) 

As you remember, the peroneii (3 heads) are on the outside of the lower leg (in a nice, easy to remember order of longus, brevis and tertius, from top to bottom) and help to stabilize the lateral ankle. The peroneus brevis and tertius dorsiflex and evert the foot while the peroneus longus plantarflexes and everts the foot. We discuss the peroneii more in depth here in this post. It then is probably no surprise to you that people with ankle issues, probably have some degree of peroneal dysfunction. Over the years the literature has supported notable peroneal dysfunction following even a single inversion sprain event. 

Functional ankle instability (FAI) is defined as “ the subjective feeling of ankle instability or recurrent, symptomatic ankle sprains (or both) due to proprioceptive and neuromuscular deficits." 

Arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) is a neurological phenomenon where the muscles crossing a joint become "inhibited”, sometimes due to effusion (swelling) of the joint (as seen here) and that may or may not be the case with the ankle (see here), or it could be due to nociceptive input altering spindle output or possibly higher centers causing the decreased muscle activity. 

This paper (see abstract below) merely exemplifies both the peroneals and FAI as well as AMI.

Take home message?

Keep the peroneals strong with lots of balance work!                                                             

 

 

2009 May;37(5):982-8. doi: 10.1177/0363546508330147. Epub 2009 Mar 6.

Peroneal activation deficits in persons with functional ankle instability.

Palmieri-Smith RM, Hopkins JT, Brown TN.

Source

School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, 401 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. riannp@umich.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Functional ankle instability (FAI) may be prevalent in as many as 40% of patients after acute lateral ankle sprain. Altered afference resulting from damaged mechanoreceptors after an ankle sprain may lead to reflex inhibition of surrounding joint musculature. This activation deficit, referred to as arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI), may be the underlying cause of FAI. Incomplete activation could prevent adequate control of the ankle joint, leading to repeated episodes of instability.

HYPOTHESIS:

Arthrogenic muscle inhibition is present in the peroneal musculature of functionally unstable ankles and is related to dynamic peroneal muscle activity.

RESULTS:

The FAI patients had larger peroneal H:M ratios in their nonpathological ankle (0.399 +/- 0.185) than in their pathological ankle (0.323 +/- 0.161) (P = .036), while no differences were noted between the ankles of the controls (0.442 +/- 0.176 and 0.425 +/- 0.180). The FAI patients also exhibited lower EMG after inversion perturbation in their pathological ankle (1.7 +/- 1.3) than in their uninjured ankle (EMG, 3.3 +/- 3.1) (P < .001), while no differences between legs were noted for controls (P > .05). No significant relationship was found between the peroneal H:M ratio and peroneal EMG (P > .05).

CONCLUSION:

Arthrogenic muscle inhibition is present in the peroneal musculature of persons with FAI but is not related to dynamic muscle activation as measured by peroneal EMG amplitude. Reversing AMI may not assist in protecting the ankle from further episodes of instability; however dynamic muscle activation (as measured by peroneal EMG amplitude) should be restored to maximize ankle stabilization. Dynamic peroneal activity is impaired in functionally unstable ankles, which may contribute to recurrent joint instability and may leave the ankle vulnerable to injurious loads.

 

The Calcaneo Cuboid Locking Mechanism...Revisited...

Do you know what this is? You should if you treat folks who walk or run!

It is the mechanism by which the tendon of the peroneus longus travels behind the lateral malleolus of the ankle, travels underfoot, around the cuboid to insert into the lateral aspect of the base of the 1st metatarsal and adjacent 1st cunieform. Remember the peroneus longus?

The peroneus (or fibularis) longus arises from the head and upper two-thirds of the lateral surface of the fibula, from the deep surface of the fascia, and from the intermuscular septa between it and the muscles on the front and back of the leg; occasionally also by a few fibers from the lateral condyle of the tibia.  You can see from it attachments that it can influence the entire upper lateral leg.

It’s tendon runs down the fibular shaft, wraps around the lateral malleolus, travels obliquely under the foot, crossing the lateral cuboid (which it everts after midstance to help with supination) crosses the sole of the foot obliquely, and inserts into the lateral side of the base of the first metatarsal and lateral aspect of the 1st cunieform.  

It acts from just prior to heel strike to limit excessive rearfoot inversion, through midstance to decelerate subtalar pronation and assists in stabilization of the midfoot articulations, and into terminal stance and pre swing to lock the lateral column of the foot for toe off and plantar flex the 1st ray (creating a good foot tripod), allowing dorsal posterior shift of the 1st metatarsal-phalangeal joint axis (necessary for dorsiflexion of the hallux (big toe)).

When the peroneus longus contracts, in addition to plantar flexing the 1st ray, it everts the cuboid and locks the lateral column of the foot, minimizing muscular strain required to maintain the foot in supination (the locked position for propulsion). Normally, muscle strength alone is insufficient to perform this job and it requires some help from the adjacent articulations.

In addition, the soleus maintains spuination during propulsion by plantar flexing and inverting rear foot via the subtalar joint. This is assisted by the peroneus brevis and tertius which also dorsflex and evert the lateral column, helping keep it locked. Can you see why the peroneii are so important?

signs of a faulty calcaneo cuboid locking mechanism

  • weak peroneus longus, brevis and or tertius
  • excessive rear or midfoot pronation
  • low arch during ambulation
  • poor or low gear “push off”
  • subluxated cuboid

 

The calcaneo cuboid locking mechanism. Essential for appropriate supination and ambulation. Insufficiency, coming to a foot you will soon examine.

Dry Needling and Proprioception. What a great combination. Since dry needling and proprioception both have such profound effects on muscle tone, why not combine them to treat chronic ankle instability? We do all the time and here is a FREE FULL TEXT…

Dry Needling and Proprioception. What a great combination.

Since dry needling and proprioception both have such profound effects on muscle tone, why not combine them to treat chronic ankle instability? We do all the time and here is a FREE FULL TEXT article that ties the two together nicely!

And what better to muscle to use than the peroneii? These babies help control valgus/varus motions of the foot and influence plantar and dorsiflexion AND the longus descends the 1st ray. We call that a triple win!

“This study provides evidence that the inclusion of TrP-DN within the lateral peroneus muscle into a proprioceptive/strengthening exercise program resulted in better outcomes in pain and function 1 month after the end of the therapy in individuals with ankle instability. Our results may anticipate that the benefits of adding TrP-DN in the lateral peroneus muscle for the management of ankle instability are clinically relevant as large between-groups effect sizes were observed in all the outcomes.”

link to full text
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4430654/

photo from this past weekends Dry Needling Seminar: working on the dorsal interossei

tumblr_mfc6225TaT1qhko2so1_1280.jpg
tumblr_mfc6225TaT1qhko2so2_1280.jpg
tumblr_mfc6225TaT1qhko2so3_r1_250.png
tumblr_mfc6225TaT1qhko2so4_r1_400.jpg

Since the world did not end, you should probably think twice about those motion control shoes….

WE can all agree that there is a time and a place for motion control shoes. For people with chronic ankle sprains or lateral instability (ie, an incompetent lateral compartment; peroneus longus, brevis or tertius), it is neither the time, nor the place.

The lateral ankle is stabilized by both static (ligaments: above lower left) and dynamic (muscles above, lower right) elements. This is often called “the lateral stabilizing complex” The lateral ankle (ie the lateral malleolus) also projects more inferiorly than the medial. This means that when push comes to shove, the ankle is more likely to invert (or go medially) than evert (or go laterally). What protects it? The static component consist of three main ligaments (seen above) the posterior and anterior talofibular ligaments and the calcaneofibular ligaments. The dynamic components are the peroneii muscles. These muscles not only stabilize but also exert an eversion (brings the bottom of the foot to the outside) force on the ankle.

So what you say?

according to one study we found “Using an in-shoe plantar pressure system, chronic ankle instability subjects had greater plantar pressures and forces in the lateral foot compared to controls during jogging.”

Hmmm. Remember the midsole? (If not click here and here for a review) Motion control shoes are medially posted. That means they provide more support medially or  have a tendency to tip the foot laterally. SO, motion control shoes shift forces laterally.

A person with chronic ankle instability has weakness of either the static, dynamic, or both components of the lateral stabilizing complex.

bottom line? make sure folks have a competent lateral stabilizing complex and if they don’t, you may want to think twice about using a motion control shoe.

Ivo and Shawn. Increasing your shoe geekiness coefficient on daily basis!                                                                                                                                                      

Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Nov;32(11):1075-80. Increased in-shoe lateral plantar pressures with chronic ankle instability. Schmidt H, Sauer LD, Lee SY, Saliba S, Hertel J. Source

University of Virginia, 2270 Ivy Road, Box 800232, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA.

Abstract BACKGROUND:

Previous plantar pressure research found increased loads and slower loading response on the lateral aspect of the foot during gait with chronic ankle instability compared to healthy controls. The studies had subjects walking barefoot over a pressure mat and results have not been confirmed with an in-shoe plantar pressure system. Our purpose was to report in-shoe plantar pressure measures for chronic ankle instability subjects compared to healthy controls.

METHODS:

Forty-nine subjects volunteered (25 healthy controls, 24 chronic ankle instability) for this case-control study. Subjects jogged continuously on a treadmill at 2.68 m/s (6.0 mph) while three trials of ten consecutive steps were recorded. Peak pressure, time-to-peak pressure, pressure-time integral, maximum force, time-to-maximum force, and force-time integral were assessed in nine regions of the foot with the Pedar-x in-shoe plantar pressure system (Novel, Munich, Germany).

RESULTS:

Chronic ankle instability subjects demonstrated a slower loading response in the lateral rearfoot indicated by a longer time-to-peak pressure (16.5% +/- 10.1, p = 0.001) and time-to-maximum force (16.8% +/- 11.3, p = 0.001) compared to controls (6.5% +/- 3.7 and 6.6% +/- 5.5, respectively). In the lateral midfoot, ankle instability subjects demonstrated significantly greater maximum force (318.8 N +/- 174.5, p = 0.008) and peak pressure (211.4 kPa +/- 57.7, p = 0.008) compared to controls (191.6 N +/- 74.5 and 161.3 kPa +/- 54.7). Additionally, ankle instability subjects demonstrated significantly higher force-time integral (44.1 N/s +/- 27.3, p = 0.005) and pressure-time integral (35.0 kPa/s +/- 12.0, p = 0.005) compared to controls (23.3 N/s +/- 10.9 and 24.5 kPa/s +/- 9.5). In the lateral forefoot, ankle instability subjects demonstrated significantly greater maximum force (239.9N +/- 81.2, p = 0.004), force-time integral (37.0 N/s +/- 14.9, p = 0.003), and time-to-peak pressure (51.1% +/- 10.9, p = 0.007) compared to controls (170.6 N +/- 49.3, 24.3 N/s +/- 7.2 and 43.8% +/- 4.3).

CONCLUSION:

Using an in-shoe plantar pressure system, chronic ankle instability subjects had greater plantar pressures and forces in the lateral foot compared to controls during jogging.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

These findings may have implications in the etiology and treatment of chronic ankle instability.


all material copyright 2012 The Homunculus Group/ The Gait Guys. Don’t rip off our stuff. PLEASE ASK 1st!