advertising
-
1
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 20: 547, 1987.
-
2
Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, et al: Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle 13: 22, 1992.
-
3
Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M: The longitudinal arch: a survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69: 426, 1987.
-
4
Chu WC, Lee SH, Chu W, et al: The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42: 1088, 1995.
-
5
Rao S, Saltzman C, Yack HJ: Ankle ROM and stiffness measured at rest and during gait in individuals with and without diabetic sensory neuropathy. Gait Posture 24: 295, 2006.
-
6
Dahle LK, Mueller MJ, Delitto A, et al: Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 14: 70, 1991.
-
7
Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB: A protocol for classifying normal- and flat-arched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Res 2: 22, 2009.
-
8
Goonetilleke RS : The Science of Footwear, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2012.
-
9
Kelly LA, Cresswell AG, Racinais S, et al: Intrinsic foot muscles have the capacity to control deformation of the longitudinal arch. J Roy Soc Interface 11: 20131188, 2014.
-
10
Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, et al: Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. JAPMA 93: 203, 2003.
-
11
Menz HB, Fotoohabadi MR, Wee E, et al: Visual categorisation of the arch index: a simplified measure of foot posture in older people. J Foot Ankle Res 5: 10, 2012.
-
12
Clarke HH: An objective method of measuring the height of the longitudinal arch in foot examinations. Am Phys Educ Assoc Res Q 4: 99, 1933.
-
13
McCrory JL, Young MJ, Boutlon AJM, et al: Arch index as a predictor of arch height. The Foot 7: 79, 1997.
-
14
Razeghi M, Batt ME: Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 15: 282, 2002.
-
15
Stindel E, Udupa JK, Hirsch BE, et al: 3D MR image analysis of the morphology of the rear foot: application to classification of bones. Comput Med Imag Graph 23: 75, 1999.
-
16
Urry SR, Wearing SC: A comparison of footprint indexes calculated from ink and electronic footprints. JAPMA 91: 203, 2001.
-
17
Knapik JJ, Swedler DI, Grier TL, et al. Injury reduction effectiveness of selecting running shoes based on plantar shape. J Strength Cond Res 23: 685, 2009.
-
18
Ledoux WR, Rohr ES, Ching RP, et al. Effect of foot shape on the three-dimensional position of foot bones. J Orthop Res 24: 2176, 2006.
-
19
Menz HB, Munteanu SE: Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36: 179, 2005.
-
20
Hernandez AJ, Kimura LK, Laraya MHF, et al: Calculation of Staheli's plantar arch index and prevalence of flat feet: a study with 100 children aged 5-9 years. Acta Ortop Brasil 15: 68, 2007.
-
21
Su K-H, Kaewwichit T, Tseng C-H, et al: Automatic footprint detection approach for the calculation of arch index and plantar pressure in a flat rubber pad. Multimedia Tools Applications 75: 9757, 2016.
-
22
Welton EA: The Harris and Beath footprint: interpretation and clinical value. Foot Ankle Int 13: 462, 1992.
-
23
Engel GM, Staheli LT: The natural history of torsion and other factors influencing gait in childhood: a study of the angle of gait, tibial torsion, knee angle, hip rotation, and development of the arch in normal children. Clin Orthop Relat Res Mar-Apr: 12, 1974.
-
24
Cobey JC, Sella E: Standardizing methods of measurement of foot shape by including the effects of subtalar rotation. Foot Ankle 2: 30, 1981.
-
25
De Pellegrin M, Moharamzadeh D, Strobl WM, et al: Subtalar extra-articular screw arthroereisis (SESA) for the treatment of flexible flatfoot in children. J Child Orthop 8: 479, 2014.
-
26
Inui K, Ikoma K, Imai K, et al: Examination of the correlation between foot morphology measurements using pedography and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Surg 56: 298, 2017.
-
27
Williams DS, McClay IS: Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther 80: 864, 2000.
-
28
Nikolaidou ME, Boudolos KD: A footprint-based approach for the rational classification of foot types in young schoolchildren. The Foot 16: 82, 2006.
Reliability of a New Method to Determine Foot Arch Height for Clinicians
Search for other papers by James A. Charles in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Clare Mignot in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Herbert F. Jelinek in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
Arch height is an important indicator of risk of foot pathology. The current non-invasive gold standard based on footprint information requires extensive pre-processing. Methods used to obtain arch height that are accurate and easier to use are required in routine clinical practice.
Methods:
The proposed arch index diagonals (AId) method for determining the arch index (AI) reduces the complexity of the preprocessing steps. All footprints were first prepared as required by the Cavanagh and Rodgers method for determining the AI and then compared to the proposed diagonals method. Results were classified according to the Cavanagh and Rodgers cut-off values into three groups of low, normal and high AI. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests were applied to identify significant differences between AI groups. Linear modeling was applied to determine the fit of the new AId method compared to the Cavanagh and Rodgers AI.
Results:
One hundred and ninety-six footprints were analyzed. The ANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups for AId (F1,194=94.49, p<0.0001) and the Tukey post hoc tests indicated significant differences between the pair-wise comparisons (p<0.001). Linear modeling indicated that the AId ratio classified more footprints in the high arch group compared to Cavanagh and Rodgers results (R2=32%, p< 0.01). Intra- and inter-rater correspondence was above 90% and confirmed that the AId results provided a better indication of arch height.
Conclusions:
The proposed method simplifies current processing steps to derive the arch height.
advertising
advertising
