Every human body, even though structured to be bilaterally
symmetrical, presents some degree of asymmetry. The questions
are: How much is too much? What is clinically significant? What
can be done to reduce pain and structurally stabilize the
patient?
Most standard clinical examinations cannot detect leg length
inequality (LLI) less than 25 mm (approximately 1 inch), and
patients themselves may be unaware of the condition. Some
practitioners consider such discrepancies mainly cosmetic, while
most chiropractors recognize LLI as a primary or contributing
cause of low-back pain, unilateral hip arthrosis, and lower
extremity stress.1
Giles reported that a leg length inequality of greater than
10 mm leads to asymmetric vertebral body height, asymmetric
endplates and traction spurs, i.e. degeneration due to focal
weight-bearing.2,3
In the early 1980’s, Ora Friberg, a Finnish Orthopaedist,
looked at over 1000 army recruits and found that over 75% of
those which had a history of chronic low back pain, hip pain
and/or sciatica had a leg length inequality (measured at the
femur head height) of 5 mm or more.1 Interestingly, of those who
had a history of hip pain, 79% experienced it on the ‘long’
leg side and of those with sciatica, 89% was again on the
‘long’ leg side.
Using these as rough guidelines, we might consider that 5 mm
is significant for pain. Those individuals with a LLI of 5 mm or
greater are more apt to develop low back pain. And a LLI greater
than 10 mm might predispose that individual to degenerative
joint disease (DJD) secondary to biomechanical malposition.
LLI can be categorized as structural or functional. Both
types evoke similar responses in the musculoskeletal system when
present for sustained periods.1
A low femur head height and/or a low sacral base and/or a low
iliac crest height — though they may appear in any
combination, typically we see all three deficiencies on the same
side (see Fig. 1). The body of the lowest freely moveable lumbar
vertebral normally rotates to the low side. Therefore the
convexity of the curve will typically be on the low side.
The prevalence of LLI was documented more than 40 years ago
in various references in osteopathic literature (see Table 1).3
Defining LLI
Leg length insufficiency can occur due to anatomical causes
such as unequal growth rates, trauma — including fractures and
surgery, congenital deformities, degeneration, infection, and
neoplasms. Such a case is referred to as structural or
anatomical LLI.
Functional LLI refers to leg length differences not
attributed to anatomical deficiency. Commonly spoken of in
chiropractic literature, the functional or physiological short
leg results from biomechanical causes anywhere within the lower
kinetic chain such as pelvic rotation, excessive foot pronation,
muscle contractures, or pelvic and sacral subluxations.
Structural and functional LLI exhibit a similar presentation
as outlined above. In clinical practice, it is the functional
LLI that is generally more prevalent and also more responsive to
therapy — both pain reduction and structural realignment.
The structural misalignment that typifies prolonged cases of
LLI affects muscular pull and the amount of weight borne by the
joints. The body can tolerate such abnormalities for short
periods, but when weight and pull fall abnormally on the
musculoskeletal system, serious and often subtle consequences
can occur. The body’s adaptation resources become exhausted,
and routine movements require greater muscular effort. Endurance
is reduced and strain on the body increases.5 Stress can be
transmitted to the ligaments, creating a vicious cycle of
misalignment, muscle fatigue, and ligament stress (see Fig. 2).
The problems of functional LLI are especially troubling in
endurance activities and those requiring fine balance or equal
leg strength and control.6 Patients who spend a great deal of
time on their feet, athletes, and other active individuals are
most likely to exhibit clinical symptoms related to LLI.
Clinical Complications
Studies within the past two decades have identified various
signs and symptoms that accompany LLI:
• Klein noted a predisposition to knee injuries in high
school athletes with LLI. He found that the ankle on the side of
LLI commonly experienced excessive pronation as the foot was
planted on the ground, forcing the foot outward and causing
excessive tibial torsion.7,8
• A negative effect on oxygen usage in subjects with LLI
has been documented.9
• A subsequent study verified that shoe lift therapy could
improve oxygen consumption.10
Examination Procedures
Both visual and radiographic procedures can be employed to
detect the presence of leg length insufficiency. Greater
accuracy of results will be achieved with the latter
technique.11,12
Radiographic examination is the more widely accepted method
of evaluating LLI. Two methods are in common use:
• Standing A-P Pelvis: A carefully-positioned weightbearing
A-P radiograph of the pelvis is useful in evaluating for LLI,
particularly if undetected clinically. The patient stands
barefoot for an A-P pelvis with the central beam centered to the
anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS). Placement of the feet
squarely beneath the femoral heads will also reduce any tendency
for the pelvis to sway to either side.
• Standing A-P Lumbopelvic: The patient stands barefoot for
an A-P view of the lumbar spine and pelvis with the central ray
centered at or just below the iliac crests. This method is less
acceptable because of the inherent distortion created by central
beam divergence. This divergence may amplify femoral head
deficiency when pelvic obliquity is present (i.e., the more
anterior femoral head will be projected lower on the
radiograph).13
Remember, that with either method, the measured distortion at
the femur head height, sacral base or iliac crest only tells you
the amount of discrepancy, not if it is functional or
anatomical.
Clinical examination may suggest an LLI but an anatomically
short leg should be confirmed with a thorough history and x-ray
measurements of the involved bones and/or joints.
When it appears that the leg length inequality is functional
versus anatomical (which is typically the case with 90% of our
chiropractic patients), check the patient for excessive
pronation or supination. Both asymmetrical pronation and a
symmetrical supination can contribute to pelvic unleveling.
Harrison states that “asymmetrical pronation has the effect of
producing pelvic tilt…”14 And Carpintero found a significant
correlation between pes cavus (a high arched foot) and
scoliosis.15
When your patient presents with pelvic unleveling and a
functional short leg, check for either excessive pronation or
supination. When present, support the foot with the proper
orthotics before using a heel lift.
The initial x-rays should be taken without shoes on as
previously mentioned. However, the follow-up radiographs should
be taken with the patient wearing good shoes with the orthotics
in place. Comparison radiographs with orthotics can provide
insight as to the amount of correction achieved with a
particular orthotic. These are typically taken 4-6 weeks later
so that you can see the effect that your chiropractic
adjustments along with the orthotic support is having on the
patient. When the amount of pelvic distortion and lateral pelvic
tilt are minimized, other postural aberrations may consequently
resolve. Ideally, the new measurement should be less than 10 mm
(clinically significant for DJD) and preferably less than 5 mm
(clinically significant for pain).
Figures 3A & 3B demonstrate a typical example of the
benefits of corrective orthotics. The pre-orthotic radiograph
(Fig. 3A) shows a 15.5 mm functional LLI on the right. This
deficiency was reduced to 4 mm on the follow-up radiograph (Fig.
3B) taken with the full length Spinal Pelvic Stabilizer Orthotic
by Foot Levelers. Not only has the pelvic deficiency been
markedly reduced, but the right compensatory listing of the
lower lumbar spine has also diminished.
Not every case will resolve to this extent, as many other
factors — such as age, overall health, degeneration etc. —
will play a role. However, I anticipate, based on personal
clinical experience, that on the average, a functional deficit
can be reduced by one-half or 5-7 mm — whichever is greater.
Anatomical or Structural LLI and Lifts
As a general rule, “Make haste slowly”. Most of these
cases are chronic — they’ve been there a long time and the
body has compensated for this distortion. If a structural change
is induced rapidly, this may cause a new painful compensatory
reaction.
First, examine the patient for pedal imbalance as mentioned
above. If present, cast the patient for the proper orthotics.
Order the orthotic with a 3 mm Velcro heel lift and take it off
when the orthotic comes in. Foot Levelers’ adjustable heel
lifts give you the flexibility to vary the heel lift height.
Initially, have the patient wear only the orthotics for about
two to four weeks. This allows time for the patient to get used
to the orthotics and reduce biomechanical compensations induced
by the functional component superimposed on the structural
deficit. At the end of this period, clinically reassess the
patient for the need of a lift. This is done through clinical
examination and re-x-ray (in shoes with orthotics). Remember
that some change may occur with using only the orthotics even
with known anatomical leg length inequalities. If you feel that
a lift is still necessary, proceed slowly.
As a general rule lifts are used on the side to which the
body of the lowest freely moveable vertebrae has rotated.
Starting with 3 mm the height can be increased as tolerated by
the patient. Usually, two weeks per height increase allows
enough time for the patient to adjust to the new position. Some
patients may take more time to adjust — proceed slowly.
Typically, one-half the femur head height discrepancy is the
amount of heel lift necessary for full correction. Follow-up
x-rays are the best way to be sure.
Clinical Management Options
Effective clinical management of LLI depends on careful
examination of three primary factors:
• Origin of leg inequality.
• Degree of inequality.
• Age of patient.
It is important to remember that the body compensates for
deficiencies which occur during its growth phase. Once the
growth phase is complete, this compensation can alter the
postural attitude. It should be noted that most postural
deficits have their onset by the beginning of puberty.
Table 2 is a useful guide to determining the most
appropriate use of orthotics and lifts for LLI care.16
In Summary
Differences in leg lengths, structural or functional, are
common. Methods utilized to evaluate these differences are
subject to examiner variability. Radiographic procedures are
more commonly relied upon as the standard but clinical
observation techniques are widely applied.
The association between leg length inequalities and symptoms
of back pain, leg pain, pelvic obliquity, and associated
scoliotic deviations of the lumbar spine are well documented.
The value of structurally compensating for the deficiency has
proved to be beneficial.
The effectiveness of chiropractic adjustive procedures for
LLI is enhanced when the body’s functional integrity is given
therapeutic orthotic support and lifts when necessary. When
selecting a lab to create a patient’s orthotics, choose one
that offers a wide range of flexible orthotic styles that can be
fitted with adjustable lifts for enhanced performance.
The general conclusion one might draw from Friberg’s
extensive study of LLI indicates that at least 75 percent of the
population has some degree of LLI. Furthermore, studies indicate
that proper management of LLI, through use of lifts and
orthotics, yields optimal results.
References
1. Friberg O. Clinical symptoms and biomechanics of lumbar spine
and hip joint in leg length inequality. Spine 1983; 8:643-650.
2. Giles LGF, Taylor JR. Lumbar spine structural changes
associated with leg length inequality. Spine 1982; 7:159-162.
3. Giles LGF, Taylor JR. Low back pain associated with leg
length inequality. Spine 1981; 6:510-521.
4. Beal MC. A review of the short-leg problem. JAOA 1950;
50(2):190-121.
5. Schafer RC. Chiropractic Management of Sports and
Recreational Injuries. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1982.
6. Hlavac HF. The Foot Book Advice for Athletes. Mountain View:
World Publications, 1977.
7. Klein KK. Development asymmetries of the weightbearing
skeleton and its implication in knee stress and knee injury.
Athletic Training 1978; 13(2):78-80.
8. Klein KK. Development asymmetries of the weightbearing
skeleton and its implication in knee stress and knee injury: a
continuing report. Athletic Training 1982; 18:207-208.9.
9. Delacerda FG, McCrory ML. A case report: effect of leg length
differential on oxygen consumption. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
1981; 3:17-20.
10. Delacerda GG, Wikoff OD. Effect of lower extremity asymmetry
on the kinematics of gait. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1982;
3:105-107.
11. Lawrence DJ. Chiropractic concepts of the short leg: a
critical review. JMPT 1985; 8(3):157-161.
12. Shambaugh P, Scalfani L, Fanselow D. Reliability of the
Derifield-Thompson test for leg length inequality and use of the
test to demonstrate cervical adjusting efficacy. JMPT 1988;
11(5):396-399.
13. Lawrence DJ, Pugh J, Tasharski C, Heinze W. Evaluation of a
radiographic method of determining short leg mensuration. J Am
Chiro Assn 1984; 18:57-79.
14. Harrison D., et al. CPB, Vol. 4. 1988.
15. Carpintero P, et al. The relationship between pes cavus and
idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1994; 19:1260-1263.
16. Greenawalt MH. Spinal Pelvic Stabilization. Roanoke: Foot
Levelers Educational Division, 1990: 61-2.