• 1

    Razeghi M, Batt ME: Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 15: 282, 2002.

  • 2

    Buldt AK, Murley GS, Butterworth P, et al.: The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: a systematic review. Gait Posture 38: 363, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Buldt AK, Levinger P, Murley GS, et al.: Foot posture is associated with kinematics of the foot during gait: a comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. Gait Posture 42: 42, 2015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Kararti C, Bilgin S, Dadali Y, et al.: Biomechanical features of the foot and ankle related to lumbopelvic motor control? JAPMA 111: Article 13, 2021.

  • 5

    Tong JW, Kong PW: Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: systematic literature review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43: 700, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Neal BS, Griffiths IB, Dowling GJ, et al.: Foot posture as a risk factor for lower limb overuse injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res 7: 55, 2014.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Menz HB, Dufour AB, Riskowski JL, et al.: Foot posture, foot function and low back pain: the Framingham Foot Study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 52: 2275, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Shrader JA, Popovich JM Jr, Gracey GC, et al.: Navicular drop measurement in people with rheumatoid arthritis: interrater and intrarater reliability. Phys Ther 85: 656, 2005.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Zuil-Escobar JC, Martínez-Cepa CB, Martín-Urrialde JA, et al.: Evaluating the medial longitudinal arch of the foot: correlations, reliability, and accuracy in people with a low arch. Phys Ther 99: 364, 2019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Cornwall MW, McPoil TG, Lebec M, et al.: Reliability of the modified Foot Posture Index. JAPMA 98: 7, 2008.

  • 11

    Razak AH, Zayegh A, Begg RK, et al.: Foot plantar pressure measurement system: a review. Sensors (Basel) 12: 9884, 2012.

  • 12

    Buldt AK, Allan JJ, Landorf KB, et al.: The relationship between foot posture and plantar pressure during walking in adults: a systematic review. Gait Posture 62: 56, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Jonely H, Brismée JM, Sizer PS, 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.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    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.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Kirmizi M, Cakiroglu MA, Elvan A, et al.: Reliability of different clinical techniques for assessing foot posture. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 20: 30113, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Bryant A, Singer K, Tinley P: Comparison of the reliability of plantar pressure measurements using the two-step and midgait methods of data collection. Foot Ankle Int 20: 646, 1999.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, et al.: Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 19: 162, 1994.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Miller AL: A new method for synchronization of motion capture and plantar pressure data. Gait Posture 32: 279, 2010.

  • 19

    Mukaka MM: Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24: 69, 2012.

  • 20

    Chan YH. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singapore Med J 44: 614, 2003.

  • 21

    Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG: “Correlation: A Measure of Relationship,” in Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 5th ed, p 95, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Bush JA, et al.: Influence of compression hosiery on physiological responses to standing fatigue in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1849, 2000.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Messing K, Kilbom A: Standing and very slow walking: foot pain-pressure threshold, subjective pain experience and work activity. Appl Ergon 32: 81, 2001.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Halim I, Omar AR: A review on health effects associated with prolonged standing in the industrial workplaces. IJRRAS 8: 14, 2011.

  • 25

    Hansen L, Winkel J, Jørgensen K: Significance of mat and shoe softness during prolonged work in upright position: based on measurements of low back muscle EMG, foot volume changes, discomfort and ground force reactions. Appl Ergon 29: 217, 1998.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Menz HB, Dufour AB, Riskowski JL, et al.: Association of planus foot posture and pronated foot function with foot pain: the Framingham foot study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 65: 1991, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Kernozek TW, Elfessi A, Sterriker S: Clinical and biomechanical risk factors of patients diagnosed with hallux valgus. JAPMA 93: 97, 2003.

  • 28

    Golightly YM, Hannan MT, Dufour AB, et al.: Factors associated with hallux valgus in a community-based cross-sectional study of adults with and without osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 67: 791, 2015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Huang YC, Wang LY, Wang HC, et al.: The relationship between the flexible flatfoot and plantar fasciitis: ultrasonographic evaluation. Chang Gung Med J 27: 443, 2004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, et al.: The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20: 877, 2005.

  • 31

    Cain LE, Nicholson LL, Adams RD, et al.: Foot morphology and foot/ankle injury in indoor football. J Sci Med Sport 10: 311, 2007.

  • 32

    Hetsroni I, Nyska M, Ben-Sira D, et al.: Analysis of foot structure in athletes sustaining proximal fifth metatarsal stress fracture. Foot Ankle Int 31: 203, 2010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Are Static Foot Posture Measures Related to Static and Dynamic Plantar Pressure Parameters?

Muge KirmiziIzmir Katip Celebi University, Faculty of Health Sciences, İzmir, Turkey.

Search for other papers by Muge Kirmizi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Yesim Salik Sengul
Search for other papers by Yesim Salik Sengul in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD†
,
Gamze Yalcinkaya
Search for other papers by Gamze Yalcinkaya in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD‡
, and
Salih Angin
Search for other papers by Salih Angin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD§
Restricted access

Background: A few studies have investigated the relationship between foot posture measures and plantar pressure parameters, but no study has investigated the correlation of foot posture measures with all primary parameters consisting of contact area (CA), maximum force (MF), and peak pressure (PP). We aimed to determine the relationship of the Foot Posture Index-6 (FPI-6) and navicular drop (ND) with plantar pressure parameters during static standing and preferred walking.

Methods: Seventy people were included. Navicular drop and the FPI-6 were used to assess foot posture. Plantar pressure parameters including CA, MF, and PP were recorded by a pressure-sensitive mat during barefoot standing and barefoot walking at preferred speed. All assessments were repeated three times and averaged. Pearson correlation coefficients below 0.300 were accepted as negligible and higher ones were interpreted.

Results: Navicular drop was moderately correlated with dynamic CA under the midfoot and second metatarsal; also, the FPI-6 was moderately correlated with dynamic CA under the midfoot (0.500 < r < 0.700). The other interpreted correlations were poor (0.300 < r < 0.500). Both measures were correlated with dynamic CA under the second and third metatarsals; dynamic CA and MF under the midfoot; and static CA, MF, and PP under the first metatarsal and hallux (P < .01). Navicular drop was also correlated with dynamic MF under the first metatarsal and dynamic CA under the fourth metatarsal (P < .01). Furthermore, ND was correlated with static CA and PP under the second metatarsal and static PP under the fifth metatarsal (P < .01). The FPI-6 was also correlated with dynamic MF and PP under the hallux (P < .01).

Conclusions: The correlations between foot posture measures and plantar pressure variables are poor to moderate. The measures may be useful in the clinical assessment of medial forefoot problems related to prolonged standing and midfoot complaints related to high force during walking. Furthermore, the FPI-6 may provide valuable data regarding hallux complaints related to the high loads during walking.

Corresponding author: Muge Ki̇rmi̇zi̇, MSc, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Havaalanı Sosesi St, No:33, Çiğli, İzmir TR-35620, Turkey. (E-mail: mugekirmizi@hotmail.com)