advertising
-
1
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.
-
2
Urry SR, Wearing SC: A comparison of footprint indexes calculated from ink and electronic footprints. JAPMA 91: 203, 2001.
-
3
Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, et al.: Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle 13: 22, 1992.
-
4
Song J, Hillstrom HJ, Secord D, et al.: Foot type biomechanics: comparison of planus and rectus foot types. JAPMA 86: 16, 1996.
-
5
Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res 1: 1, 2008.
-
6
Shiang T, Lee SH, Lee SJ, et al.: Evaluating different footprints parameters as a predictor of arch height. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 17: 62, 1998.
-
7
Williams DS, McClay IS: Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther 80: 864, 2000.
-
8
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.
-
9
Yalçin N, Esen E, Kanatli U, et al.: Evaluation of the medial longitudinal arch: a comparison between the dynamic plantar pressure measurement system and radiographic analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 44: 241, 2010.
-
10
Tong JWK, Kong PW: Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: systematic literature review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43: 700, 2013.
-
11
Richards C, Card K, Song J, et al.: A novel arch height index assessment: intra-rater reliability. Proc Am Soc Biomech Annu Meet 2003: 1, 2003.
-
12
Butler RJ, Hillstrom H, Song J, et al.: Arch height index measurement system: establishment of reliability and normative values. JAPMA 98: 102, 2008.
-
13
Weimar WH, Shroyer JF: Arch height index normative values of college-aged women using the arch height index measurement system. JAPMA 103: 213, 2013.
-
14
Hegedus EJ, Cook C, Fiander C, et al.: Measures of arch height and their relationship to pain and dysfunction in people with lower limb impairments. Physiother Res Int 15: 160, 2010.
-
15
Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, et al.: Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales: outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 27: 214, 1999.
-
16
Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, et al.: The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther 79: 371, 1999.
-
17
Rabbito M, Pohl MB, Humble N, et al.: Biomechanical and clinical factors related to stage I posterior tibial tendon dysfunction. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 41: 776, 2011.
-
18
Richards C, Card K, Song J, et al.: A novel arch height index measurement system (AHIMS): intra- and inter-rater reliability. Paper presented at: American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting, Toledo, OH, September, 25–27, 2003.
-
19
Segal NA, Boyer ER, Teran-Yengle P: Pregnancy leads to lasting changes in foot structure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 92: 232, 2013.
-
20
Zifchock RA, Davis I, Hillstrom H, et al.: The effect of gender, age, and lateral dominance on arch height and arch stiffness. Foot Ankle Int 27: 367, 2006.
-
21
Franco H: Pes cavus and pes planus. analyses and treatment. Phys Ther 67: 688, 1987.
-
22
Saghazadeh M, Kitano N, Okura T: Gender differences of foot characteristics in older Japanese adults using a 3D foot scanner. J Foot Ankle Res 8: 1, 2015.
-
23
Zhao X, Gu Y, Yu J, et al.: The influence of gender, age, and body mass index on arch height and arch stiffness. J Foot Ankle Surg 59: 298, 2020.
-
24
Komeda T, Tanaka Y, Takakura Y, et al.: Evaluation of the longitudinal arch of the foot with hallux valgus using a newly developed two-dimensional coordinate system. J Orthop Sci 6: 110, 2001.
-
25
Eustace S, Byrne J, Beausang O, et al.: Hallux valgus, first metatarsal pronation and collapse of the medial longitudinal arch: a radiological correlation. Skeletal Radiol 23: 191, 1994.
-
26
Yokozuka M, Okazaki K, Sakamoto Y, et al.: Relationship between foot morphology and toe muscle strength in female university students. J Phys Ther Sci 31: 457, 2019.
-
27
Wearing S, Smeathers J, Urry SR, et al.: The pathomechanics of plantar fasciitis. Sports Med 36: 585, 2006.
-
28
Warren B: Anatomical factors associated with predicting plantar fasciitis in long-distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16: 60, 1984.
-
29
Nakhaee Z, Rahimi A, Abaee M, et al.: The relationship between the height of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) and the ankle and knee injuries in professional runners. Foot 18: 84, 2008.
-
30
Baumhauer JF, Alosa DM, Renström PAFH, et al.: A prospective study of ankle injury risk factors. Am J Sports Med 23: 564, 1995.
-
31
Bjelopetrovich A, Barrios JA: Effects of incremental ambulatory-range loading on arch height index parameters. J Biomech 49: 3555, 2016.
Arch Height Index, Arch Rigidity Index, and Arch Stiffness Values in a Symptomatic Population
Search for other papers by Megan E.R. Balsdon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Kinesiology, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Search for other papers by Michaela Khan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dillon Richards in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Search for other papers by Colin E. Dombroski in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Studies of arch height index (AHI), arch rigidity index (ARI), and arch stiffness have primarily focused on healthy populations. Normative values of the aforementioned measurements in a pathologic sample may be useful in identifying relationships between arch structure and pathology.
Methods: AHI was obtained bilaterally at 10% and 90% weightbearing conditions using the AHI measurement system. ARI and arch stiffness were calculated using AHI measurements. Dependent t tests compared right and left, dominant and nondominant, and injured and noninjured limbs. Dominant feet were compared between sexes using independent t tests. Relationships between arch stiffness and subcategories were examined using the coefficient of determination (R2). One-way analyses of variance determined differences between arch structure and number of pathologies or body mass index (BMI).
Results: A total of 110 participants reported one (n = 55), two (n = 38), or three or more (n = 17) pathologies. Plantar fasciitis (n = 31) and hallux valgus (n = 28) were the most common. AHI, ARI, and arch stiffness did not differ between limbs or sexes for any comparisons. Between subgroups of BMI and number of pathologies, BMI influenced AHI (10% weightbearing) and arch stiffness (P < .05). Arch stiffness showed a weak relationship to AHI, where a higher AHI was associated with a stiffer arch (R2 = 0.06).
Conclusions: Normative arch structure values were established in a pathologic sample with a large incidence of plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus. Understanding relationships between arch structure and pathology is helpful for clinicians and researchers.
advertising
