advertising
-
1.
Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L: Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait Posture 26: 68, 2007.
-
2.
VanZant RS, McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: Symmetry of plantar pressures and vertical forces in healthy subjects during walking. JAPMA 91: 337, 2001.
-
3.
Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, et al: The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clin Biomech 20: 877, 2005.
-
4.
Bus SA, Maas M, de Lange A, et al: Elevated plantar pressures in neuropathic diabetic patients with claw/hammer toe deformity. J Biomech 38: 1918, 2005.
-
5.
Queen RM, Mall NA, Nunley JA, et al: Differences in plantar loading between flat and normal feet during different athletic tasks. Gait Posture 29: 582, 2009.
-
6.
Rao S, Saltzman CL, Yack HJ: Relationships between segmental foot mobility and plantar loading in individuals with and without diabetes and neuropathy. Gait Posture 31: 251, 2010.
-
7.
Stebbins JA, Harrington ME, Giacomozzi C, et al: Assessment of sub-division of plantar pressure in children. Gait Posture 22: 372, 2005.
-
8.
Taylor AJ, Menz HB, Keenan AM: Effects of experimentally induced plantar insensitivity on forces and pressures under the foot during normal walking. Gait Posture 20: 232, 2004.
-
9.
Ellis SJ, Yu JC, Johnson AH, et al: Plantar pressures in patients with and without lateral foot pain after lateral column lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92: 81, 2010.
-
10.
Najafi B, Helbostad JL, Moe-Nilssen R, et al: Does walking strategy in older people change as a function of walking distance? Gait Posture 29: 261, 2009.
-
11.
Thometz JG, Liu XC, Tassone C, et al: Correlation of foot radiographs with foot function as analyzed by plantar pressure distribution. J Pediatr Orthop 25: 249, 2005.
-
12.
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 20: 547, 1987.
-
13.
Igbigbi PS, Msamati BC, Shariff MB: Arch index as a predictor of pes planus: a comparative study of indigenous Kenyans and Tanzanians. JAPMA 95: 273, 2005.
-
14.
Wearing SC, Hills AP, Byrne NM, et al: The arch index: a measure of flat or fat feet? Foot Ankle Int 25: 575, 2004.
-
15.
Hamill J, Bates BT, Knutzen KM, et al: Relationship between selected static and dynamic lower extremity measures. Clin Biomech 4: 217, 1989.
-
16.
Menz HB, Morris ME: Clinical determinants of plantar forces and pressures during walking in older people. Gait Posture 24: 229, 2006.
-
17.
Morag E, Cavanagh PR: Structural and functional predictors of regional peak pressures under the foot during walking. J Biomech 32: 359, 1999.
-
18.
Teyhen DS, Stoltenberg BE, Eckard TG, et al: Static foot posture associated with dynamic plantar pressure parameters. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41: 100, 2011.
-
19.
McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: Use of plantar contact area to predict medial longitudinal arch height during walking. JAPMA 96: 489, 2006.
-
20.
Cornwall MW, McPoil TG, Lebec M, et al: Reliability of the modified Foot Posture Index. JAPMA 98: 7, 2008.
-
21.
Redmond A: The Foot Posture Index: user guide and manual. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/medicine/FASTER. Accessed January 11, 2014.
-
22.
Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res 1: 6, 2008.
-
23.
Staheli LT: The longitudinal arch: a study of eight hundred and eighty two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69: 3, 1987.
-
24.
Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, et al: The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88: 88, 2007.
-
25.
Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA: Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standard foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech 21: 89, 2006.
-
26.
Najafi B, Crews RT, Armstrong DG, et al: Can we predict outcome of surgical reconstruction of Charcot neuroarthropathy by dynamic plantar pressure assessment? a proof of concept study. Gait Posture 31: 87, 2010.
-
27.
Menz HB: Two feet, or one person? problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. Foot 14: 2, 2004.
-
28.
Redmond A: Editorial: two feet or one person? Foot 14: 1, 2004.
-
29.
Fascione JM, Crews RT, Wrobel JS: Dynamic footprint measurement collection technique and intra-rater reliability: ink mat, paper pedography, and electronic pedography. JAPMA 102: 130, 2012.
-
30.
Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak N, et al: Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle 13: 22, 1992.
-
31.
Mathieson I, Upton D, Prior TD: Examining the validity of selected measures of foot type: a preliminary study. JAPMA 94: 275, 2004.
-
32.
Fascione JM, Crews RT, Wrobel JS: The association of foot print measurements and running training level, performance success, and training specificity. Footwear Sci 1: 145, 2009.
-
33.
Hughes J, Pratt L, Linge K, et al: Reliability of pressure measurements: the EMED F system. Clin Biomech 6: 14, 1991.
-
34.
Vincent WJ: Statistics in Kinesiology, 3rd Ed, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2005.
-
35.
Zhu H, Wertsch JJ, Harris GF, et al: Walking cadence effect on plantar pressures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76: 1000, 1995.
-
36.
Hills AP, Henning EM, McDonald M, et al: Plantar pressure differences between obese and non-obese adults: a biomechanical analysis. Int J Obes 25: 1674, 200l.
-
37.
Nester CJ: Lessons from dynamic cadaver and invasive bone pin studies: do we know how the foot really moves during gait? J Foot Ankle Res 2: 18, 2009.
Association of Footprint Measurements with Plantar Kinetics
A Linear Regression Model
Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research, Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, IL.
Search for other papers by Jeanna M. Fascione in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ryan T. Crews in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by James S. Wrobel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
The use of foot measurements to classify morphology and interpret foot function remains one of the focal concepts of lower-extremity biomechanics. However, only 27% to 55% of midfoot variance in foot pressures has been determined in the most comprehensive models. We investigated whether dynamic walking footprint measurements are associated with inter-individual foot loading variability.
Methods
Thirty individuals (15 men and 15 women; mean ± SD age, 27.17 ± 2.21 years) walked at a self-selected speed over an electronic pedography platform using the midgait technique. Kinetic variables (contact time, peak pressure, pressure-time integral, and force-time integral) were collected for six masked regions. Footprints were digitized for area and linear boundaries using digital photo planimetry software. Six footprint measurements were determined: contact area, footprint index, arch index, truncated arch index, Chippaux-Smirak index, and Staheli index. Linear regression analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment was performed to determine the association between the footprint measurements and each of the kinetic variables.
Results
The findings demonstrate that a relationship exists between increased midfoot contact and increased kinetic values in respective locations. Many of these variables produced large effect sizes while describing 38% to 71% of the common variance of select plantar kinetic variables in the medial midfoot region. In addition, larger footprints were associated with larger kinetic values at the medial heel region and both masked forefoot regions.
Conclusions
Dynamic footprint measurements are associated with dynamic plantar loading kinetics, with emphasis on the midfoot region.
advertising
