advertising
-
1
Lovett HW, Dane J: The affections of the arch of the foot commonly classified as flat-foot. Trans Am Orthop Assoc, 18: 78, 1896.
-
2
Pauk J, Daunoraviciene K, Ihnatouski M, et al: Analysis of the plantar pressure distribution in children with foot deformities. Acta Bioeng Biomech 12: 29, 2010.
-
3
Rose GK: “Pes Planus,” in Disorder of the Foot and Ankle, edited by MH Jahss, p 892, WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1991.
-
4
Chen YC, Lou SZ, Huang CY, et al: Effects of foot orthoses on gait patterns of flat feet patients. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25: 265, 2010.
-
5
Bertani A, Cappello A, Benedetti MG, et al: Flat foot functional evaluation using pattern recognition of ground reaction data. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 14: 484, 1999.
-
6
Franco AH: Pes cavus and pes planus: analyses and treatment. Phys Ther 67: 688, 1987.
-
7
Walczak M, Napiontek M: Flexible flatfoot in children: a controversial subject [in Polish]. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 68: 261, 2003.
-
8
Walczak M, Napiontek M: The variability of plantar pressure pattern distribution in healthy children and its relation to flexible flatfoot. J Orthop Trauma Surg Relat Res 5: 4, 2007.
-
9
Sviridenok A, Lashkovsky V: “Biomechanical Aspects of Modern Pediatrics Development,” in Biomechanics of Human Foot, international conference proceedings, Belarus, June 18–19, 2008.
-
10
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 20: 547, 1987.
-
11
Wearing SC, Hills AP, Byrne NM, et al: The arch index: a measure of flat or fat feet? Foot Ankle Int 25: 575, 2004.
-
12
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.
-
13
Wrobel JS, Birkmeyer NJ, Dercoli JL, et al: Do clinical examination variables predict high plantar pressures in the diabetic foot? JAPMA 93: 367, 2003.
-
14
Armstrong DG, Lavery LA: Elevated peak plantar pressures in patients who have Charcot arthropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80: 365, 1998.
-
15
Lavery LA, Lavery DC, Quebedeax-Farnham TL: Increased foot pressures after great toe amputation in diabetes. Diabetes Care 18: 1460, 1995.
-
16
Veves A, Fernando DJ, Walewski P, et al: A study of plantar pressures in a diabetic clinic population. The Foot 2: 89, 1991.
-
17
Simkin A, Leichter I, Giladi M, et al: Combined effect of foot arch structure and an orthotic device on stress fractures. Foot Ankle 10: 25, 1989.
-
18
Razeghi M, Batt ME: Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 15: 282, 2002.
-
19
Mohr LB: Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, 2nd Ed, Sage Publications, London, 1995.
-
20
Allen MP: “Regression Analysis with Standardized Variables,” in Understanding Regression Analysis, p 46, Springer US, New York, 1997.
-
21
Draper N, Smith H: Applied Regression Analysis, John Willey & Sons, New York, 1981.
-
22
Szczygiel E, Golec E, Golec J, et al: Comparative analysis of distribution on the sole surface of arched feet and flat feet. Przegl Lek 65: 4, 2008.
-
23
Chuckpaiwong B, Nunley JA, Mall NA, et al: The effect of foot type on in-shoe plantar pressure during walking and running. Gait Posture 28: 405, 2008.
-
24
Cytowicz-KarpiŁowska W, KarpiŁowski B: The loading in flat feet children. Adv Rehabil 11: 123, 1997.
-
25
Ledoux WR, Hillstrom HJ: The distributed plantar vertical force of neutrally aligned and pes planus feet. Gait Posture 15: 1, 2002.
-
26
Soames RW: Foot pressure patterns during gait. J Biomed Eng 7: 120, 1985.
-
27
Sarnow MR, Veves A, Giurini JM, et al: In-shoe foot pressure measurements in diabetic patients with at-risk feet and in healthy subjects. Diabetes Care 17: 1002, 1994.
-
28
Najafi B, Barnica E, Wrobel JS, et al: Dynamic plantar loading index: understanding the benefit of custom foot orthoses for painful pes cavus. J Biomech 45: 1705, 2012.
-
29
Hennig EM, Staats A, Rosenbaum D: Plantar pressure distribution patterns of young school children in comparison to adults. Foot Ankle Int 15: 35, 1994.
-
30
Riddiford-Harland D, Steele J, Storlien L: Does obesity influence foot structure in prepubescent children? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24: 541, 2000.
-
31
Aharonson Z, Voloshin A, Steinbach TV, et al: Normal foot-ground pressure pattern in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 150: 220, 1980.
-
32
Burnfield JM, Few CD, Mohamed OS, et al: The influence of walking speed and footwear on plantar pressures in older adults. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19: 78, 2004.
Assessing Plantar Pressure Distribution in Children with Flatfoot Arch
Application of the Clarke Angle
Search for other papers by Jolanta Pauk in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mikhail Ihnatouski in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bijan Najafi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
Flatfoot, or pes planus, is one of the most common foot posture problems in children that may lead to lower-extremity pain owing to a potential increase in plantar pressure. First, we compared plantar pressure distribution between children with and without flatfoot. Second, we examined the reliability and accuracy of a simple metric for characterization of foot posture: the Clarke angle. Third, we proposed a mathematical model to predict plantar pressure magnitude under the medial arch using body mass and the Clarke angle.
Methods
Sixty children with flatfoot and 33 aged-matched controls were recruited. Measurements included in-shoe plantar pressure distribution, ground reaction force, Clarke angle, and radiography assessment. The measured Clarke angle was compared with radiographic measurements, and its test-retest reliability was determined. A mathematical model was fitted to predict plantar pressure distribution under the medial arch using easy-to-measure variables (body mass and the Clarke angle).
Results
A high correlation was observed between the Clarke angle and radiography measurements (r > 0.9; P < 10−6). Excellent between- and within-day test-retest reliability for Clarke angle measurement (intraclass correlation coefficient, >0.9) was observed. Results also suggest that pressure magnitude under the medial arch can be estimated using the Clarke angle and body mass (R2 = 0.95; error, <0.04 N/cm2 [2%]).
Conclusions
This study suggests that the Clarke angle is a practical, reliable, and sensitive metric for quantification of medial arch height in children and could be recommended for research and clinical applications. It can also be used to estimate plantar pressure under the medial arch, which, in turn, may assist in the timely intervention and prognosis of prospective problems associated with flatfoot posture.
advertising
