advertising
-
1
Barton CJ, Levinger P, Crossley KM, et al: Relationships between the Foot Posture Index and foot kinematics during gait in individuals with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Foot Ankle Res 14: 10, 2011.
-
2
Tweed JL, Campbell JA, Avil SJ: Biomechanical risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome in distance runners. JAPMA 98: 436, 2008.
-
3
Nubé VL, Molyneaux L, Yue DK: Biomechanical risk factors associated with neuropathic ulceration of the hallux in people with diabetes mellitus. JAPMA 96: 189, 2006.
-
4
Crosbie J, Burns J: Are in-shoe pressure characteristics in symptomatic idiopathic pescavus related to the location of foot pain? Gait Posture 27: 16, 2008.
-
5
Jonely H, Brismee JM, Sizer PS, Jr, et al: Relationships between clinical measures of static foot posture and plantar pressure during static standing and walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 26: 873, 2011.
-
6
McPoil TG, Vicenzino B, Cornwall MW, et al: Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: acomposite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot. J Foot Ankle Res 6: 6, 2009.
-
7
Weimar WH, Shroyer JF: Arch height index normative values of college-aged women using the arch height index measurement system. JAPMA 103: 213, 2013.
-
8
Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA: Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21: 89, 2006.
-
9
Morrison SC, Ferrari J: Inter-rater reliability of the Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) in the assessment of the paediatric foot. J Foot Ankle Res 21: 26, 2009.
-
10
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.
-
11
Yates B, White S: The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. Am J Sports Med 32: 772, 2004.
-
12
Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, et al: The effect of pescavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20: 877, 2005.
-
13
Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L: Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait Posture 26: 68, 2007.
-
14
Cornwall MW, McPoil TG, Lebec M, et al: Reliability of the modified Foot Posture Index. JAPMA 98: 7, 2008.
-
15
Menz HB. Two feet, or one person? Problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. Foot 14: 2, 2004.
-
16
Rubio MA, Salas-Salvadó J, Barbany M, et al: Consenso SEEDO 2007 para la evaluación del sobrepeso y la obesidad y el establecimiento de criterios de intervención terapéutica. Rev Esp Obes 5: 135, 2007.
-
17
Nigg BM: The role of impact forces and foot pronation: a new paradigm. Clin J Sport Med 11: 2, 2001.
-
18
Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res 1: 6, 2008.
-
19
Atamturk D: Estimation of sex from the dimensions of foot, footprints, and shoe. Anthropol Anz 68: 21, 2010.
-
20
Aurichio TR, Rebelatto JR, de Castro AP: The relationship between the body mass index (BMI) and foot posture in elderly people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 52: 89, 2011.
Normal Values of the Foot Posture Index in a Young Adult Spanish Population
A Cross-Sectional Study
Search for other papers by Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Raquel Sanchez-Rodriguez in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eva Lopezosa-Reca in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jose Antonio Cervera-Marin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rodrigo Martinez-Quintana in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alfonso Martinez-Nova in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
Although the appearance of foot or lower-limb pathologies is etiologically multifactorial, foot postures in pronation or supination have been related to certain diseases such as patellofemoral syndrome and plantar fasciitis. The objective of the present study was to determine the normal values of foot posture in a healthy young adult Spanish sample, and to identify individuals at risk of developing some foot pathology.
Methods
The Foot Posture Index (FPI) was determined in a sample of 635 (304 men, 331 women) healthy young adults (ages 18–30 years). The FPI raw score was transformed into a logit score, and a new classification was obtained with the mean ± 2 SD to identify the 5% of the sample with potentially pathologic feet.
Results
The normal range of the FPI was −1 to +6, and FPI values from +10 to +12 and −6 to −12 could be classified as indicating potentially pathologic feet. The women's logit FPI (0.50 ± 1.4, raw FPI +3) was higher than the men's (0.25 ± 1.6, raw FPI +2), with the difference being significant (P = 0.038). No statistically significant differences were found between body mass index groups (P = 0.141).
Conclusions
The normal FPI range goes from just one point of supination to a certain degree of pronation (+6). The identification of 35 individuals with potentially pathologic feet may help in the implementation of a preventive plan to avoid the appearance of foot disorders.
advertising
