advertising
-
1
Didia BC, Omu ET, Obuoforibo AA: The use of the footprint contact index II for classification of flat feet in a Nigerian population. .Foot Ankle 7::285. ,1987. .
-
2
Volpon JB: Footprint analysis during the growth period. .J Pediatr Orthop 14::83. ,1994. .
-
3
Welton EA: The Harris and Beath footprint: interpretation and clinical value. .Foot Ankle 13::462. ,1992. .
-
4
Rose GK, Welton EA, Marshall T: The diagnosis of flat foot in the child. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 67::71. ,1985. .
-
5
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. .J Biomech 20::547. ,1987. .
-
6
Forriol F, Pascual J: Footprint analysis between three and seventeen years of age. .Foot Ankle 11::101. ,1990. .
-
7
Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, et al: Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. .Foot Ankle 13::22. ,1992. .
-
8
McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: Use of medial longitudinal arch height to predict plantar surface contact area during walking [abstract]. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30::A29. ,2000. .
-
9
McCrory JL, Young MJ, Boulton AJM, et al: Arch index as a predictor of arch height. .Foot 7::79. ,1997. .
-
10
Shiang TY, Lee SH, Lee SJ, et al: Evaluating different parameters as a predictor of arch height. .IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 17::62. ,1998. .
-
11
Chu WC, Lee SH, Chu W, et al: The use of the arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach. .IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42::1088. ,1995. .
-
12
Mathieson I, Upton D, Birchenough A: Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. .Foot 9::145. ,1999. .
-
13
Rossi WA: Podometrics: a new methodology for foot typing. Contemp Podiatr Physician Nov: 28, 1992. (cited in “Podometry,” in Scientific Foot Analysis Software Manual, Version 08.7, p 10, Novel GmbH, Munich)..
-
14
Bland MJ, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. .Lancet 1::307. ,1986. .
-
15
Wearing SC, Urry S, Smeathers JE, et al: A comparison of gait initiation and termination methods for obtaining plantar foot pressures. .Gait Posture 10::255. ,1999. .
-
16
Urry S: Plantar pressure-measurement sensors. .Meas Sci Technol 10::16. ,1999. .
-
17
Davis BL, Cothren RM, Quesada P, et al: Frequency content of the normal and diabetic plantar pressure profiles: implications for the selection of transducer sizes. .J Biomech 29::979. ,1996. .
-
18
Lord M: Spatial resolution in plantar pressure measurement. .Med Eng Phys 19::140. ,1997. .
-
19
Hennig EM, Rosenbaum D: Pressure distribution patterns under the feet of children in comparison with adults. .Foot Ankle 11::306. ,1991. .
-
20
Betts RP, Franks CI, Duckworth T, et al: Static and dynamic foot pressure measurements in clinical orthopaedics. .Med Biol Eng Comput 18::674. ,1980. .
A Comparison of Footprint Indexes Calculated from Ink and Electronic Footprints
Search for other papers by Stephen R. Urry in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Scott C. Wearing in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Pressure platforms offer the potential to measure and record electronic footprints rapidly; however, the accuracy of geometric indexes derived from these prints has not been investigated. A comparison of conventional ink footprints with simultaneously acquired electronic prints revealed significant differences in several geometric indexes. The contact area was consistently underestimated by the electronic prints and resulted in a significant change in the arch index. The long plantar angle was poorly correlated between techniques. This study demonstrated that electronic footprints, derived from a pressure platform, are not representative of the equivalent ink footprints and, consequently, should not be interpreted with reference to literature on conventional footprints. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(4): 203-209, 2001)
advertising
