# Foot Contact Dynamics and Fall Risk among Children Diagnosed with Idiopathic Toe Walking
## 3 Results
### Gait Assessments  
The interaction effects were found to be significant (\(p\) < 0.001) for stride length between walking type (toe walking versus typical), and groups (ITW versus controls). [PERSON]'s HSD revealed that controls produced longer strides during typical walking. Contrastingly cITW made longer strides during toe walking. Similarly, we found that the stride times were shorter during toe walking among both groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ITW**} \\ \hline
**Angles [Degrees]** & **Toe Walking** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Typical** \\ **Walking** \\ \end{tabular} & **Toe Walking** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Typical** \\ **Walking** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Foot angle at FIC & \(-26.0\pm 17.1\) & \(1.6\pm 23.8\) & \(-29.1\pm 17.5\) & \(-16.3\pm 24.1\) \\ Foot angle at Foot Off (FO) & \(-43.2\pm 36.0\) & \(-41.1\pm 37.8\) & \(-47.2\pm 35.0\) & \(-34.0\pm 35.2\) \\ Ankle angle at Loading & \(-19.2\pm 16.9\) & \(-9.1\pm 13.4\) & \(-24.5\pm 16.6\) & \(-15.6\pm 12.7\) \\ Ankle angle at Midstance & \(-16.4\pm 8.7\) & \(3.7\pm 6.2\) & \(-22.8\pm 8.0\) & \(-6.2\pm 10.9\) \\ Ankle angle at Push\(-\)off & \(-25.8\pm 12.0\) & \(4.6\pm 8.8\) & \(-27.7\pm 9.1\) & \(-4.0\pm 11.5\) \\ Knee angle at Loading & \(25.2\pm 12.8\) & \(32.0\pm 14.2\) & \(25.5\pm 9.7\) & \(31.9\pm 16.4\) \\ Knee angle at Midstance & \(28.8\pm 23.0\) & \(30.2\pm 23.9\) & \(30.1\pm 23.3\) & \(38.5\pm 28.0\) \\ Knee angle at Push\(-\)off * & \(6.6\pm 13.0\) & \(4.1\pm 7.8\) & \(6.8\pm 8.9\) & \(11.1\pm 9.8\) \\ Hip angle at Loading & \(23.0\pm 36.6\) & \(24.7\pm 20.3\) & \(26.4\pm 22.9\) & \(25.2\pm 26.2\) \\ \hline Hip angle at Midstance & \(19.3\pm 41.5\) & \(24.9\pm 16.0\) & \(28.9\pm 34.9\) & \(33.1\pm 20.3\) \\ Hip angle at Push\(-\)off & \(14.1\pm 39.4\) & \(14.1\pm 22.7\) & \(19.2\pm 39.9\) & \(28.2\pm 23.8\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Foot segment angle at FIC and FO and joint angles at loading, midstance, and push-off among ITW and controls. Here significant differences are represented by * (\(p\) < 0.05).  
Figure 4: Push-off rate among ITW and Controls during typical and toe walking.  
We found significant interaction effects (\(p\) = 0.01) for single stance time (SST). We found that cITW had longer SST during toe walking when compared to typical walking (Figure 7). Toe walking resulted in increased step width as compared to typical gait for both groups (\(p\) = 0.0004).  
Figure 5: Knee angles during push-off among controls versus cITW. Where * represents significant difference with \(p\) < 0.05.  
Figure 6: Foot segment angle at foot initial contact, dorsiflexion (positive), and plantarflexion (negative).  
Figure 7: Interaction effects were seen in single stance time for group versus walking type.  
Toe clearance significantly decreased among ITW during typical gait when compared to toe walking (\(p\) = 0.005) (Figure 8).  
Vertical foot contact velocity was significantly higher during toe walking among both of the groups (\(p\) = 0.0004) as compared to typical gait. Vertical foot contact velocity was the lowest among controls during typical gait. Horizontal foot contact velocity was found to be significantly higher during toe walking than typical walking among controls (\(p\) = 0.0006) (Figure 9).  
Figure 8: Interaction effects were seen in minimum toe clearance among groups and walking type.  
Figure 9: Horizontal and vertical foot contact velocity during typical and toe walking. Where * represents significant difference with \(p\) < 0.05.