March 2011

Effect of foot function on landing mechanics

www.istockphoto.com #11138385

Malalignment or dysfunction of the foot can increase the risk of landing-related trauma such as anterior cruciate ligament injury, particularly in female athletes. But foot orthoses and bracing can help alter landing mechanics in ways that may decrease that injury risk.

By Douglas Powell, PhD, and Nicholas J. Hanson, MS

Landing is a common maneuver in many athletic events. It involves the dissipation of kinetic energy through passive structures such as connective tissues and eccentric contractions of the lower extremity musculature, including the hip and knee extensors as well as ankle plantar flexors.1, 2 The high impact loading and the sudden decelerations associated with landing may have negative effects on the musculoskeletal system, including tendinopathies, cartilage lesions, joint pain, arthritis, bone bruises, fractures, and ligament tears.3-6

One factor that has been heavily associated with increased risk of injury during landing activities is gender. It has been well documented that female athletes suffer a greater propensity for traumatic lower extremity injury such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture.6-10 Many structural, neuromuscular, physiological, and biomechanical factors have been investigated as possible contributors to the increased rate of traumatic lower extremity injury in female athletes.  However, many researchers believe a central component involves lower extremity landing mechanics.7-16

Further complicating the assessment of biomechanics in traumatic injury in landing is the role of foot structure in determining the loading pattern of the lower extremity. Malalignment and dysfunction of the foot have been heavily studied as a key factor in lower extremity injury in recent years.8, 17-29 Specifically, the structure of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) has been identified as a major indicator of foot dysfunction.29-33 The MLA extends from the calcaneus to the first metatarsal head and consists of the calcaneus, talus, navicular, three cuneiforms, and the first three metatarsals.34 Given the importance of the MLA in assessing foot structure and function,21, 35-37 many measurements have been used to characterize the height and function of the MLA including foot prints,31 plantar pressures,38 relative arch deformity,30, 39 arch index ratio,39 and arch stiffness.40 Though the MLA and foot type are known to be important structures in determining the pattern of lower extremity loading, few prospective research studies of landing mechanics have controlled for foot type. 41, 42

Injury

The relationship between foot structure and injury has been well researched.8, 17-29 Recent studies have revealed that individuals with either high- or low-arched feet have a greater propensity for injury to the lower extremity and back.22,29,43 Furthermore, these two functionally different groups experience similarly dichotomous injury patterns: high-arched athletes have a greater risk of bony injury to the lateral aspect of the lower extremity, while low-arched athletes experience more soft tissue injuries to the medial aspect of the lower extremity.18,22,29 Although these unique injury patterns can be attributed to the altered loading patterns experienced by the respective groups due to the interaction of the foot with the ground, these studies examined over-use injuries associated with running rather than traumatic injuries associated with landing. Few studies have examined the structure and function of the foot in relation to traumatic injury of the lower extremity.8,17,23,44

The link between foot structure and traumatic lower extremity injury patterns has not been well studied. Several research investigations have examined the relationship between common clinical measures of foot structure and the risk of traumatic lower extremity.8,17,23,44 The consensus of these studies suggests that clinical measures of foot type associated with over-pronation, which include subtalar joint position and navicular drop test, were highly associated with traumatic knee injury, specifically ACL rupture.17,23,44 However, these studies only present correlational data rather than direct investigations into the underlying mechanisms of ACL rupture. Very limited data exist with regard to the relationship between foot type and landing mechanics associated with lower extremity injury.41

Powell et al41 compared landing mechanics between high- and low-arched recreational athletes, but limited the sample population to female athletes. Though the high- and low-arched athletes exhibited similar kinetic profiles in the frontal and sagittal planes, unique joint angles were observed in the frontal plane at key events within the landing phase, including initial contact, peak vertical ground reaction force and peak knee flexion. The investigated events were defined as the beginning (initial contact) and end (peak knee flexion) of the landing movement and the point at which the lower extremity experiences the greatest load (peak vertical ground reaction force). Specifically, the low-arched athletes exhibited significantly greater ankle inversion angles at initial contact compared to the high-arched athletes; however, this difference was no longer present at the time of peak vertical ground reaction force.

Previous research40 has shown high-arched feet to be more rigid than low-arched feet, and the greater inversion angle in the low-arched athletes could be a strategy to decrease ankle stiffness upon landing. Ankle stiffness can be described as the change in ankle joint angle relative to the load creating the change in joint angle. Previous research has shown that methods limiting ankle dorsiflexion range of motion result in decreased knee flexion,45 increased knee valgus,46 and greater ground reaction forces.45 Therefore, a decrease in ankle joint stiffness would functionally increase the range of motion of the knee and limit the ground reaction forces experienced, attenuating the risk of traumatic knee injury. The abolition of increased ankle inversion in the low-arched athletes at the time of peak vertical ground reaction force suggests that this strategy may be effective to decrease ankle stiffness as the ankle exhibited a larger range of motion within the same period of time.

Powell et al41 also noted differences in frontal plane knee and hip joint angles between the high- and low-arched athletes at the time of peak knee flexion. Though the two groups exhibited differences late in the landing phase, it could be argued that the timing of these unique joint angles does not play a role in the different injury patterns suffered by these two functionally different groups of athletes.

A limitation of the study by Powell et al41 is the relatively low landing height studied (0.3 meters), which is associated with smaller mechanical demands than may be required to induce injury. It is logical to argue that a greater mechanical demand would exacerbate differences between high- and low-arched athletes. However, previous research has shown that changes in ankle kinetics are minimal when landing from increasing heights, as the hip and knee joints exhibit substantially greater eccentric work and power than the ankle during a landing task.2, 6, 47 Yeow et al6 reported that male athletes did not alter lower extremity joint angles in the frontal plane when the landing was increased from 0.3 meters to 0.6 meters. However, they significantly increased the contribution of the hip joint to energy dissipation with increased landing height, suggesting males adopt a hip-dominant landing strategy.  These results concur with previous research demonstrating a greater contribution of proximal musculature with increasing demand in male subjects2 however, there is a dearth of literature comparing the effects of gender on lower extremity mechanics with increasing mechanical demand.

Recent research has, however, investigated the mechanisms of ACL injury in high-level competition. Boden et al48 retrospectively examined select video of ACL ruptures in male and female athletes during collegiate and professional sports, including basketball, soccer and football. Their findings demonstrated differences in kinematic patterns between subjects rupturing their ACL and healthy controls during similar movements. Specifically, those athletes experiencing traumatic knee injury exhibited significantly less ankle plantarflexion at initial contact and had little change in ankle angle during the early stages of load response. The decreased range of motion exhibited by the injured athletes showed that these athletes did not dissipate energy at the level of the ankle; thus the knee experienced greater loading, resulting in traumatic knee injury. It was also revealed that while individuals suffering traumatic knee injury and healthy controls did not exhibit different knee abduction angles at initial contact, the injured athletes did exhibit increasing knee abduction after initial contact compared to healthy controls.  Boden et al48 also noted that the female athletes included in their study experienced a “valgus collapse,” indicated by a greater knee abduction position, compared to male athletes.

Further demonstrating the importance of the gender differences previously reported,9,15,48 research has shown that the ankle musculature makes a greater contribution to energy dissipation during the landing phase in female subjects than in male subjects.9,15 It is suggested that the unique kinematics and the increased role of the ankle in dissipating energy comprise a strategy adopted by female athletes to avoid placing stresses on the knee joint and in turn reduce the risk of traumatic knee injury. However, it is possible that the altered landing mechanics may actually increase the risk of injury, as it has been previously reported that alterations of as little as two degrees in frontal plane alignment of the knee can decrease the threshold for ACL injury by up to one body weight.11 Therefore, these findings also suggest that aberrant foot function in female athletes may have a greater mechanical effect during landing than in male athletes and may further increase the risk of traumatic injury to the lower extremity. (Although aberrant foot function may disproportionately increase the risk of injury in female athletes compared to male athletes, previous research has suggested that neither gender has a greater propensity of aberrant foot function.40) Given this increased risk of ACL injury with aberrant foot function in female athletes and the greater reliance on ankle musculature during landings, it is of utmost importance to address foot and ankle dysfunction in female athletes.

Interventions

Several strategies have been used to improve foot function and reduce lower extremity injury in athletes. Some common forms of intervention include ankle taping and bracing, as well as the introduction of foot orthotics.

Taping and bracing of the ankle are common interventions to reduce or prevent ankle injury and re-injury. Though no direct evidence exits, previous research findings suggest that ankle taping and bracing reduce the kinematic and kinetic variables associated with traumatic knee injury and indirectly suggest that ankle taping and bracing may attenuate the increased risk of traumatic knee injury associated with aberrant foot function. Several studies have examined the effects of ankle bracing and taping on perceived instability,49 range of motion,50,51 and neuromuscular activation patterns.52,53 In a recent study it was reported that ankle bracing was associated with decreased sagittal plane motion at the ankle, but resulted in increased knee flexion at landing.54 Another study examining the effects of ankle taping on lower extremity mechanics during athletic tasks55 demonstrated that ankle taping reduced knee internal rotation and varus moments; however, knee valgus moments were increased. Valgus loading of the knee is a common mechanism of ACL injury.48 Another recent study45 revealed that individuals with a greater sagittal plane range of motion exhibited greater knee-flexion displacement and smaller ground reaction forces.  These mechanics are consistent with decreased loading and may reduce the risk of injury by limiting the forces applied to the lower extremity.56-58

By design, ankle taping limits ankle range of motion, specifically targeting pronation which is a common mechanism of acute ankle sprain. However, taping functionally limits ankle range of motion in the sagittal plane, possibly limiting the displacement available at the ankle and applying greater loads to the knee joint and its supporting connective tissues.48,56 Therefore, ankle taping may impair strategies for shock attenuation, resulting in a greater risk of traumatic knee injury.

Another study investigating the efficacy of ankle bracing revealed increased ankle eversion torques and knee external rotation torques when athletes wore ankle braces during a landing task.57 Furthermore, there were no changes in knee valgus torques, suggesting that ankle braces may be associated with fewer adverse effects and a lower risk of ACL injury than ankle taping. While ankle bracing and taping may be common interventions for ankle instability, recent literature suggests these two interventions may aid in controlling the transverse plane motions associated with traumatic knee injury.

However, research evidence pertaining to the effects of ankle taping and bracing on the biomechanics of the knee during a landing task is diffuse, with few studies directly investigating these relationships. Current literature suggests that foot position during landing directly modulates lower extremity mechanics. Further, these data suggest that ankle taping and bracing address different mechanisms associated with traumatic knee injury, and no over-arching conclusion can be made regarding their efficacy in reducing the risk of ACL injury.

Another common intervention to prevent lower extremity injury in athletics is the use of semi-custom or custom orthotics to correct for foot malalignment or aberrant foot function. A cross-sectional study investigating the efficacy of orthotics in preventing knee ligament injury in basketball players has demonstrated positive effects.14 One hundred fifty female basketball players over a 13-year period were assigned to either a control group, which did not receive orthotics, or a treatment group which received orthotics. The control group had an anterior cruciate or collateral ligament injury rate of .50 injuries per 1000 athlete exposures, while the orthotics group had injury rates of .07 and .29 per 1000 exposures for the anterior cruciate and collateral ligaments, respectively. These findings strongly suggest that orthotics decrease the propensity of injury in female athletes during a landing sport.

Further study into the mechanisms of function by which orthotics decrease the rate of injury revealed that orthotics were associated with changes in transverse plane of motion of the lower extremity.58 Specifically, the efficacy and lower extremity mechanics associated with over-the-counter and semi-custom orthotic designs were examined. While both orthotics limited transverse plane motion of the lower extremity, the over-the-counter orthotic altered hip internal rotation and the semi-custom orthotic limited tibial internal rotation. Though effectively acting at different locations in the kinetic chain, both orthotic devices limited known mechanisms of ACL injury14 and, it is logical to argue, would decrease the risk of injury in female athletes. Another recent study pertaining to the efficacy of foot orthotics in reducing kinematics associated with ACL injury 59 revealed that orthotics reduce knee valgus and ankle pronation at initial contact during landing. As the transmission of loading through the ankle to more proximal structures happens over a short period of time, the position of the foot at initial contact is central in determining lower extremity loading patterns.56

The increased reliance upon an ankle strategy in females suggests that aberrant foot function may disproportionately increase their risk of traumatic knee injury compared to their male counterparts.9,15 However, data pertaining to the effects of orthotics on lower extremity injury suggest that orthotic interventions not only compensate for aberrant foot function, but act in a manner that limits the mechanics associated with rupture of the ACL.58

Conclusions

In summary, proper function of the foot and ankle are paramount in landing. Malalignment or dysfunction of the foot can place an athlete at an increased risk of traumatic injury to the lower extremity. Female athletes are more susceptible to pathomechanics associated with foot dysfunction during a landing task due to their greater reliance upon the ankle for energy dissipation. However, bracing and orthotic interventions have been shown to be effective in limiting lower extremity mechanics associated with traumatic injury of the knee in landing.

Douglas Powell, PhD, is a research fellow in the Department of Physical Therapy at Creighton University in Omaha, NE. Nicholas J. Hanson, MS, is a doctoral student in the College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH.

References

1.            Prilutsky BI, Zatsiorsky VM. Tendon action of two-joint muscles: transfer of mechanical energy between joints during jumping, landing, and running. J Biomech 1994;27(1):25-34.

2.            Zhang SN, Bates BT, Dufek JS. Contributions of lower extremity joints to energy dissipation during landings. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32(4):812-819.

3.            Dufek JS, Bates BT. Biomechanical factors associated with injury during landing in jump sports. Sports Med 1991;12(5):326-337.

4.            Radin EL, Martin RB, Burr DB, et al. Effects of mechanical loading on the tissues of the rabbit knee. J Orthop Res 1984;2(3):221-234.

5.            Radin EL, Yang KH, Riegger C, et al. Relationship between lower limb dynamics and knee joint pain. J Orthop Res 1991;9(3):398-405.

6.            Yeow CH, Lee PV, Goh JC. Effect of landing height on frontal plane kinematics, kinetics and energy dissipation at lower extremity joints. J Biomech 2009;42(12):1967-1973.

7.            Chappell JD, Herman DC, Knight BS, et al. Effect of fatigue on knee kinetics and kinematics in stop-jump tasks. Am J Sports Med 2005;33(7):1022-1029.

8.            Jenkins WL, Killian CB, Williams DS 3rd, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in female and male athletes: the relationship between foot structure and injury. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2007;97(5):371-376.

9.            McLean SG, Fellin RE, Suedekum N, et al. Impact of fatigue on gender-based high-risk landing strategies. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39(3):502-514.

10.            Molnar TJ, Fox JM. Overuse injuries of the knee in basketball. Clin Sports Med 1993;12(2):349-362.

11.            Chaudhari AM, Andriacchi TP. The mechanical consequences of dynamic frontal plane limb alignment for non-contact ACL injury. J Biomech 2006;39(2):330-338.

12.            Cortes N, Onate J, Abrantes J, et al.. Effects of gender and foot-landing techniques on lower extremity kinematics during drop-jump landings. J Appl Biomech 2007;23(4):289-299.

13.            Decker MJ, Torry MR, Wyland DJ, et al. Gender differences in lower extremity kinematics, kinetics and energy absorption during landing. Clin Biomech 2003;18(7):662-669.

14.            Jenkins WL, Raedeke SG, Williams DS 3rd. The relationship between the use of foot orthoses and knee ligament injury in female collegiate basketball players. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2008;98(3):207-211.

15.            Kernozek TW, Torry MR, van Hoof H, et al. Gender differences in frontal and sagittal plane biomechanics during drop landings. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37(6):1003-1012.

16.            Malinzak RA, Colby SM, Kirkendall DT, et al. A comparison of knee joint motion patterns between men and women in selected athletic tasks. Clin Biomech 2001;16(5):438-445.

17.            Beckett ME, Massie DL, Bowers KD, Stoll DA. Incidence of hyperpronation in the ACL injured knee: a clinical perspective. J Athl Train 1992;27(1):58-62.

18.            Giladi M, Milgrom C, Stein M, et al. The low arch, a protective factor in stress fractures. A prospective study of 295 military recruits. Orthop Rev 1985;14(11):709-712.

19.            Hunt AE, Smith RM. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech 2004;19(4):391-397.

20.            Inman VT. The influence of the foot-ankle complex on the proximal skeletal structures. Artif Limbs 1969;13(1):59-65.

21.            James SL, Bates BT, Osternig LR. Injuries to runners. Am J Sports Med 1978;6(2):40-50.

22.            Kaufman KR, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA, et al. The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. Am J Sports Med 1999;27(5):585-593.

23.            Loudon JK, Jenkins W, Loudon KL. The relationship between static posture and ACL injury in female athletes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1996;24(2):91-97.

24.            McClay I, Manal K. A comparison of three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics during running between excessive pronators and normals. Clin Biomech 1998;13(3):195-203.

25.            Prichasuk S, Subhadrabandhu T. The relationship of pes planus and calcaneal spur to plantar heel pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;(306):192-196.

26.            Rattanaprasert U, Smith R, Sullivan M, Gilleard W. Three-dimensional kinematics of the forefoot, rearfoot, and leg without the function of tibialis posterior in comparison with normals during stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech 1999;14(1):14-23.

27.            Smith J, Szczerba JE, Arnold BL, et al. Role of hyperpronation as a possible risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament injuries. J Athl Train 1997;32(1):25-28.

28.            Subotnick SI. The biomechanics of running. Implications for the prevention of foot injuries. Sports Med 1985;2(2):144-153.

29.            Williams DS 3rd, McClay IS, Hamill J. Arch structure and injury patterns in runners. Clin Biomech 2001;16(4):341-347.

30.            Cavanagh PR, Morag E, Boulton AJ, et al. The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. J Biomech 1997;30(3):243-250.

31.            Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 1987;20(5):547-551.

32.            Hamill J, Bates BT, Knutzen KM, Kirkpatrick GM. Relationship between selected static and dynamic lower extremity measurements. Clin Biomech 1989;4(4):217-225.

33.            Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, Nigg BM. Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle 1992;13(1):22-26.

34.            Snell RS. Clinical anatomy for medical students. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2000.

35.            Bates BT, Osternig LR, Mason B, James SL. Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. Am J Sports Med 1979;7(6):338-342.

36.            Hamill J, Bates BT, Holt KG. Timing of lower extremity joint actions during treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992;24(7):807-813.

37.            Nigg BM. Biomechanics, load analysis and sports injuries in the lower extremities. Sports Med 1985;2(5):367-379.

38.            Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 2002;15(3):282-291.

39.            Williams DS 3rd, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther 2000;80(9):864-871.

40.            Zifchock RA, Davis I, Hillstrom H, Song J. The effect of gender, age, and lateral dominance on arch height and arch stiffness. Foot Ankle Int 2006;27(5):367-372.

41.             Powell D, Zhang S, Milner CE, et al. Lower extremity kinetics in high- and low-arched female athletes during landing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010;42(5 Suppl):681.

42.            Powell DW, Long B, Milner CE, Zhang S. Frontal plane landing mechanics in high- and low-arched female athletes. Hum Mov Sci 2011;30(1):105-114.

43.            Carpintero P, Entrenas R, Gonzalez I, et al. The relationship between pes cavus and idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1994;19(11):1260-1263.

44.            Woodford-Rogers B, Cyphert L, Denegar CR. Risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury in high school and college athletes. J Athl Train 1994;29(4):343-346.

45.             Fong CM, Blackburn JT, Norcross MF, et al. Ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion and landing biomechanics. J Athl Train 2011;46(1):5-10.

46.             Hagins M, Pappas E, Kremenic I, et al. The effect of an inclined landing surface on biomechanical variables during a jumping task. Clin Biomech 2007;22(9):1030-1036.

47.            Yeow CH, Lee PV, Goh JC. Sagittal knee joint kinematics and energetics in response to different landing heights and techniques. Knee 2010;17(2):127-131.

48.            Boden BP, Torg JS, Knowles SB, Hewett TE. Video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament injury: abnormalities in hip and ankle kinematics. Am J Sports Med 2009;37(2):252-259.

 

49.            Buchanan AS, Docherty CL, Schrader J. Functional performance testing in participants with functional ankle instability and in a healthy control group. J Athl Train 2008;43(4):342-346.

50.            Callaghan MJ. Role of ankle taping and bracing in the athlete. Br J Sports Med 1997;31(2):102-108.

51.            Eils E, Demming C, Kollmeier G, et al. Comprehensive testing of 10 different ankle braces. Evaluation of passive and rapidly induced stability in subjects with chronic ankle instability. Clin Biomech 2002;17(7):526-535.

52.            Cordova ML, Cardona CV, Ingersoll CD, Sandrey MA. Long-term ankle brace use does not affect peroneus longus muscle latency during sudden inversion in normal subjects. J Athl Train 2000;35(4):407-411.

53.            Cordova ML, Ingersoll CD. Peroneus longus stretch reflex amplitude increases after ankle brace application. Br J Sports Med 2003;37(3):258-262.

54.            DiStefano LJ, Padua DA, Brown CN, Guskiewicz KM. Lower extremity kinematics and ground reaction forces after prophylactic lace-up ankle bracing. J Athl Train 2008;43(3):234-441.

55.            Stoffel KK, Nicholls RL, Winata AR, et al. The effect of ankle taping on knee and ankle joint biomechanics in sporting tasks. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010;42(11):2089-2097.

56.            Kovacs I, Tihanyi J, Devita P, et al. Foot placement modifies kinematics and kinetics during drop jumping. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31(5):708-716.

57.            Venesky K, Docherty CL, Dapena J, Schrader J. Prophylactic ankle braces and knee varus-valgus and internal-external rotation torque. J Athl Train 2006;41(3):239-244.

58.            Jenkins WL, Williams DS, Durland A, et al. Foot orthotic devices decrease transverse plane motion during landing from a forward vertical jump in healthy females. J Appl Biomech 2009;25(4):387-395.

59.            Joseph M, Tiberio D, Baird JL, et al. Knee valgus during drop jumps in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I female athletes: the effect of a medial post. Am J Sports Med 2008;36(2):285-289.

One Response to Effect of foot function on landing mechanics

  1. Harvey Johnson says:

    The author states “Specifically, the structure of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) has been identified as a major indicator of foot dysfunction.”
    In over 20 + years of treating elite athletes, weekend warriors and everyday average people I have yet to find arc heigh relevant to understanding foot mechanics, specifically pronation.
    I find that measuring and casting the foot in non weight bearing subtalar neutral without dorsiflexing the 4/5 ray is the only true method that is reproducible and provides scientifically valid measurements. I place significant importance on the subtalar neutral angle and the forefoot position to determine posting. This combined with visual weigh bearing assessment gives me the necessary information on the basic alignment of the custom foot orthotic.
    The author states “Given the importance of the MLA in assessing foot structure and function many measurements have been used to characterize the height and function of the MLA including foot prints plantar pressures, relative arch deformity arch index ratio,and arch stiffness”.
    Until and unless their is a universal methodology for evaluating the foot that is reproducible throughout the medical community and everybody is using the same scientific language all these studies will not be comparable to each other. Many of these studies use different methods to measure the foot and different language to describe “pathomechanics”. I say there is no such thing as pathomechanics. There are just variations of different foot types. Who is to say that a person who pronates more than someone else has pathomechanics? Given the wide variety of foot types I see in my clinic I refuse to use the label of “pathomechanics” on any person.
    Harvey Johnson
    Eno RIver Orthotics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.