Advertisement
-
1
Booya F, Bandarian F, Larijani B, et al: Potential risk factors for diabetic neuropathy: a case control study. .BMC Neurol 5::24. ,2005. .
-
2
Rozema A, Ulbrecht J, Pammer S, et al: In shoe plantar pressures during activities of daily living: implications for therapeutic footwear design. .Foot Ankle Int 17::352. ,1996. .
-
3
Branthwaite HR, Payton CJ, Chockalingam N: The effect of simple insoles on three-dimensional foot motion during normal walking. .Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19::972. ,2004. .
-
4
Bryant A, Tinley P, Singer K: Plantar pressure distribution in normal, hallux valgus and hallux limitus feet. .The Foot 9::115. ,1999. .
-
5
Bryant AR, Tinley P, Singer KP: Normal values of plantar pressure measurements determined using the EMED-SF system. .JAPMA 90::295. ,2000. .
-
6
Cavanagh PR, Morag E, Boulton AJM, et al: The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. .J Biomech 30::243. ,1997. .
-
7
Morag E, Cavanagh PR: Structural and functional predictors of regional peak pressures under the foot during walking. .J Biomech 32::359. ,1999. .
-
8
Mueller MJ, Hastings M, Commean PK, et al: Forefoot structural predictors of plantar pressures during walking in people with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy. .J Biomech 36::1009. ,2003. .
-
9
Payne C, Turner D, Miller K: Determinants of plantar pressures in the diabetic foot. .J Diabetes Complications 16::277. ,2002. .
-
10
Menz HB, Morris ME: Clinical determinants of plantar forces and pressures during walking in older people. .Gait Posture 24::229. ,2006. .
-
11
Hessert MJ, Vyas M, Leach J, et al: Foot pressure distribution during walking in young and old adults. .BMC Geriatr 5::8. ,2005. .
-
12
Planck MJ: The pattern of forefoot pressure distribution in hallux valgus. .The Foot 5::8. ,1995. .
-
13
Stebbins JA, Harrington ME, Giacomozzi C, et al: Assessment of sub-division of plantar pressure measurement in children. .Gait Posture 22::372. ,2005. .
-
14
Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM, Iiboshi A: Pressure distribution under symptom-free feet during barefoot standing. .Foot Ankle 5::262. ,1987. .
-
15
Luger EJ, Nissan M, Karpf A, et al: Patterns of weight distribution under metatarsal heads. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 81::199. ,1999. .
-
16
Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L: Age-related differences in foot structure and function. .Gait Posture 26::68. ,2007. .
-
17
Hills AP, Henning EM, McDonald M, et al: Plantar pressure differences between obese and non-obese adults: a biomechanical analysis. .Int J Obes 25::1674. ,2001. .
-
18
Clarke TE, Cavanagh P: Pressure distribution under the foot during barefoot walking. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 13::135. ,1981. .
-
19
Cavanagh PR, Sims DS, Sanders LJ: Body mass is a poor predictor of peak plantar pressures in diabetic men. .Diabetes Care 14::750. ,1991. .
-
20
Birtane M, Tuna H: The evaluation of plantar pressure distribution in obese and non-obese adults. .Clin Biomech 19::1055. ,2004. .
-
21
Rosenbaum D, Hautmann S, Gold M, et al: Effects of walking speed on plantar pressure patterns and hind-foot angular motion. .Gait Posture 2::191. ,1994. .
-
22
Burnfield JM, Few CD, Mohamed OS, et al: The influence of walking speed on footwear on plantar pressures in older adults. .Clin Biomech 19::78. ,2004. .
-
23
Zhu H, Wertsch JJ, Harris GF, et al: Walking cadence effect on plantar pressures. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76::1000. ,1995. .
-
24
Forner A, Garcia AC, Alcantara E, et al: Properties of shoe insert materials related to shock wave transmission during gait. .Foot Ankle Int 16::778. ,1995. .
-
25
Sanchez-Rodriguez R, Martinez-Nova A, Querol-Martinez E, et al: Estudio comparativo del diseño de cuatro tratamientos ortopodológicos para la descarga de la segunda cabeza metatarsal. .Rev Esp Podol 17::146. ,2006. .
-
26
Lafuente R, Donate JJ, Poveda R, et al: Valoración evolutiva de fracturas de calcáneo mediante el análisis biomecánico de la marcha: análisis de resultados. .Mapfre Medicina 13::275. ,2002. .
-
27
Orlin MN, McPoil TG: Plantar pressure assessment. .Phys Ther 80::399. ,2000. .
-
28
Hughes J, Pratt L, Linge K, et al: Reliability of pressure measurements: the EMED F system. .Clin Biomech 6::14. ,1991. .
-
29
VanZant RS, McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: Symmetry of plantar pressures and vertical forces in healthy subjects during walking. .JAPMA 91::337. ,2001. .
-
30
Barnett S, Cunningham JL, West S: A comparison of vertical force and temporal parameters produced by an in-shoe pressure measuring system and a force platform. .Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16::353. ,2001. .
-
31
Hurkmans H, Bussmann J, Benda E, et al: Accuracy and repeatability of the Pedar Mobile system in long-term vertical force measurements. .Gait Posture 23::118. ,2006. .
-
32
Quesada PM, Rash GS, Jarboe N: Assessment of Pedar and F-Scan revisited. .Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 12::S15. ,1997. .
-
33
Portney LG, Watkins MP: “Statistical Measures of Reliability,” in Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, p505, Appleton & Lange, East Norwalk, CT. ,1993. .
-
34
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. .
-
35
De Cock A, Willems T, Witvrouw E, et al: A functional foot type classification with cluster analysis based on plantar pressure distribution during jogging. .Gait Posture 23::339. ,2003. .
-
36
Mohamed O, Cerny K, Jones W, et al: The effect of terrain on foot pressures during walking. .Foot Ankle Int 26::859. ,2005. .
-
37
Burger ES: The measurement of the static forces at the weight bearing points of the feet with reference to critical heel heights and “split heel” factors. .Chir Rec 35::1. ,1952. .
-
38
Daentzer D, Wulker N, Zimmermann U: Observations concerning the transverse metatarsal arch. .Foot Ankle Surg 3::15. ,1997. .
-
39
Nigg BM: The role of impact forces and foot pronation: a new paradigm. .Clin J Sport Med 11::2. ,2001. .
-
40
Nigg BM, Wakeling JM: Impact forces and muscle tuning: a new paradigm. .Exerc Sport Sci Rev 29::37. ,2001. .
-
41
Boyer KA, Nigg BM: Muscle activity in the leg is tuned in response to impact force characteristics. .J Biomech 37::1583. ,2004. .
-
42
Wakeling JM, Von Tscharner V, Nigg BM, et al: Muscle activity in the leg is tuned in response to ground reaction forces. .J Appl Physiol 91::1307. ,2001. .
-
43
Sarnow MR, Veves A, Giurini JM, et al: In-shoe pressure measurements in diabetics with at-risk feet and in healthy subjects. .Diabetes Care 17::1002. ,1994. .
-
44
Menz HB: Two feet, or one person? problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. .The Foot 14::2. ,2004. .
Cadence, Age, and Weight as Determinants of Forefoot Plantar Pressures Using the Biofoot In-shoe System
Search for other papers by Alfonso Martínez-Nova in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Javier Pascual Huerta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Raquel Sánchez-Rodríguez in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: We evaluated normal plantar pressures and studied the effect of weight, cadence, and age on forefoot plantar pressures in healthy subjects by using the Biofoot (Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain) in-shoe measurement system.
Methods: The feet of 45 healthy subjects with no evident foot or lower-limb diseases were measured with the Biofoot in-shoe system. The forefoot was divided into seven areas: the first through fifth metatarsal heads, the hallux, and the second through fifth lesser toes. Three trials of 8 sec each were recorded twice in each subject, and the mean was used to analyze peak and mean plantar pressures. A multiple regression model including weight, age, and cadence was run for each metatarsal head, the hallux, and the lesser toes. Intraclass correlation coefficients and coefficients of variation were also calculated to assess reliability.
Results: The second metatarsal head had the greatest peak (960 kPa) and mean (585.1 kPa) pressures, followed by the third metatarsal head. Weight and cadence combined explained 18% and 23% of peak plantar pressure at the second and third metatarsal heads, respectively (P < .001). The intraclass correlation coefficient varied from 0.76 to 0.96 for all variables. The coefficient of variation between sessions ranged from 5.8% to 9.0%.
Conclusion: The highest peak and mean plantar pressures were found at the second and third metatarsal heads in healthy subjects. Weight, cadence, and age explained a low variability of this pressure pattern. The Biofoot in-shoe system has good reliability to measure plantar pressures. These data will have implications for the understanding of normal foot biomechanics and its determinants. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 98(4): 302–310, 2008)
