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

Muge KirmiziDepartment of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Cigli, Izmir, Turkey.
Institute of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey.

Search for other papers by Muge Kirmizi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MSc, PT
,
Yesim Salik SengulSchool of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylul University, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey.

Search for other papers by Yesim Salik Sengul in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Gamze YalcinkayaInstitute of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey.

Search for other papers by Gamze Yalcinkaya in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MSc
, and
Salih AnginFaculty of Health Sciences, Cyprus International University, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Search for other papers by Salih Angin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD

Abstract

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 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. ND and 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: ND was moderately correlated with dynamic CA under the midfoot and second metatarsal (M2), also 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 M2 and M3, dynamic CA and MF under the midfoot, and static CA, MF, and PP under the M1 and hallux (p<0.01). ND was also correlated with dynamic MF under the M1 and dynamic CA under the M4 (p<0.01). Further, ND was correlated with static CA and PP under the M2 also static PP under the M5 (p<0.01). FPI-6 was also correlated with dynamic MF and PP under the hallux (p<0.01).

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. Further, FPI-6 may provide valuable data regarding hallux complaints related to the high loads during walking.

Corresponding Author: Muge Kirmizi, MSc, PT, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, TR-35620, Cigli, Izmir, Turkey. (E-mail: mugekirmizi@hotmail.com)