advertising
-
1.
Putti AB, Arnold GP, Cochrane LA, et al: Normal pressure values and repeatability of the Emed ST4 system. Gait Posture 27: 501, 2008.
-
2.
Barn R, Waaijman R, Nollet F, et al: Predictors of barefoot plantar pressure during walking in patients with diabetes, peripheral neuropathy and a history of ulceration. PLoS One 10: e0117443, 2015.
-
3.
Glasoe WM, Yack HJ, Saltzman CL: Anatomy and biomechanics of the first ray. Phys Ther 79: 854, 1999.
-
4.
Skopljak A, Muftic M, Sukalo A, et al: Pedobarography in diagnosis and clinical application. Acta Inform Med 22: 374, 2014.
-
5.
Deschamps K, Staes F, Desmet D, et al: A color-code based method for the interpretation of plantar pressure measurements in clinical gait analysis. Gait Posture 41: 852, 2015.
-
6.
Cimolin V, Capodaglio P, Cau N, et al: Foot-type analysis and plantar pressure differences between obese and nonobese adolescents during upright standing. Int J Rehabil Res 39: 87, 2016.
-
7.
Rai DV, Aggarwal LM: The study of plantar pressure distribution in normal and pathological foot. Pol J Med Phys Eng 12: 25, 2006.
-
8.
Chiu MC, Wu HC, Chang LY: Gait speed and gender effects on center of pressure progression during normal walking. Gait Posture 37: 43, 2013.
-
9.
Duffin AC, Kidd R, Chan A, et al: High plantar pressure and callus in diabetic adolescents. Incidence and treatment. JAPMA 93: 214, 2003.
-
10.
Murphy DF, Beynnon BD, Michelson JD, et al: Efficacy of plantar loading parameters during gait in terms of reliability, variability, effect of gender and relationship between contact area and plantar pressure. Foot Ankle Int 26: 171, 2005.
-
11.
Putti AB, Arnold GP, Abboud RJ: Foot pressure differences in men and women. Foot Ankle Surg 16: 21, 2010.
-
12.
Demirbüken İ, Özgül B, Timurtaş E, et al: Gender and age impact on plantar pressure distribution in early adolescence. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 53: 215, 2019.
-
13.
Queen RM, Abbey AN, Wiegerinck JI, et al: Effect of shoe type on plantar pressure: a gender comparison. Gait Posture 31: 18, 2010.
-
14.
Stinson MD, Porter-Armstrong A, Eakin P: Seat-interface pressure: a pilot study of the relationship to gender, body mass index, and seating position. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84: 405, 2003.
-
15.
Sprigle SH, Faisant TE, Chung KC: Clinical evaluation of custom-contoured cushions for the spinal cord injured. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 71: 655, 1990.
-
16.
Ohlendorf D, Doerry C, Fisch V, et al: Standard reference values of the postural control in healthy young female adults in Germany: an observational study. BMJ Open 9: e026833, 2019.
-
17.
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM, Iiboshi A: Pressure distribution under symptom-free feet during barefoot standing. Foot Ankle 7: 262, 1987.
-
18.
Ohlendorf D, Kerth K, Osiander W, et al: Standard reference values of weight and maximum pressure distribution in healthy adults aged 18-65 years in Germany. J Physiol Anthropol 39: 39, 2020.
-
19.
Heylings DJ: Observations on the static footprint using the Musgrave footprint apparatus. Chiropodist (Lond) 43: 81, 1988.
-
20.
Hughes J, Pratt L, Linge K, et al: Reliability of pressure measurements: the EM ED F system. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 6: 14, 1991.
-
21.
Gimunová M, Zvonař M, Mikeska O: The effect of aging and gender on plantar pressure distribution during the gait in elderly. Acta Bioeng Biomech 20: 139, 2018.
-
22.
Fernández-Seguín LM, Diaz Mancha JA, Sánchez Rodríguez R, et al: Comparison of plantar pressures and contact area between normal and cavus foot. Gait Posture 39: 789, 2014.
-
23.
Murphy DF, Beynnon BD, Michelson JD, et al: Efficacy of plantar loading parameters during gait in terms of reliability, variability, effect of gender and relationship between contact area and plantar pressure. Foot Ankle Int 26: 171, 2005.
-
24.
Leyh C, Feipel V: Impact of sex and velocity on plantar pressure distribution during gait: a cross-sectional study using an instrumented pressure-sensitive walkway. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 7: 106, 2022.
-
25.
Helili M, Geng X, Ma X, et al: An investigation of regional plantar soft tissue hardness and its potential correlation with plantar pressure distribution in healthy adults. Appl Bionics Biomech 2021: 5566036, 2021.
-
26.
Yamamoto T, Hoshino Y, Kanzaki N, et al: Plantar pressure sensors indicate women to have a significantly higher peak pressure on the hallux, toes, forefoot, and medial of the foot compared to men. J Foot Ankle Res 13: 40, 2020.
-
27.
Wunderlich RE, Cavanagh PR: Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 605, 2001.
-
28.
Frey C: Foot health and shoewear for women. Clin Orthop Relat Res 372: 32, 2000.
-
29.
Koh DH, Lee JD, Kim K: Plantar pressures in individuals with normal and pronated feet according to static squat depths. J Phys Ther Sci 27: 2833, 2015.
-
30.
Zifchock RA, Theriot C, Hillstrom HJ, et al: The relationship between arch height and arch flexibility: a proposed arch flexibility classification system for the description of multidimensional foot structure. JAPMA 107: 119, 2017.
Static and Dynamic Foot Pressure Analysis in Asymptomatic Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
Search for other papers by Osama Neyaz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Binayak Patra in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Raj Kumar Yadav in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Shabeeba Sherin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Normative data on plantar pressure distribution are essential for comparing the plantar pressures of healthy people with those of symptomatic individuals. The present study analyzed the foot pressure distribution variations among healthy males and females in static and dynamic conditions.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation on individuals aged 18 to 65 years with no known foot pathologies or deformities. Both static and dynamic pedobarographic variables were measured using the BTS P-WALK system.
Results: Among 160 participants, the static analysis showed that average hindfoot pressure (right, 59.8 ± 21.4; left, 72.1 ± 55.4) was significantly higher than average forefoot pressure (right, 29.2 ± 13.9; left, 23.4 ± 12.7) (P < .001). The average forefoot pressure was significantly higher in males (right, 30.1 ± 23.8; left, 23.8 ± 21.7) than in females (right, 21.8 ± 20.6; left, 16.6 ± 15.3) (P = .043 and .016, respectively), whereas the average hindfoot pressure was higher in females (right, 63.5 ± 25.9; left, 75.3 ± 23.9) than in males (right, 56.1 ± 19.6; left, 68.8 ± 24.2) (P = .043 and .089, respectively).
Conclusions: The hindfoot bore more load than the forefoot when standing. Males carried a greater proportion of load over the forefoot than females. When walking, overall, the weightbearing pattern over the hindfoot and forefoot was similar.
advertising
