OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of measurements of foot pressures while walking using the F-scan computerized system with various insole sensors. DESIGN: Ten healthy subjects were studied. Each used four different pairs of insoles while walking for three 6-second epochs per insole. Peak pressures were recorded at the hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot and analyzed. Each insole was made of pressure-sensitive 25 mm 2 cells, embedded in protective backing, and scanned electronically every 50 to 100 msec. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Conventional tile floor in a gait laboratory on 10 consecutive normal subjects. RESULTS: The mean +/- standard deviation peak pressure recorded at the hindfoot was 11.1 +/- 2.0 psi; at the midfoot, 3.5 +/- 1.5 psi; and at the forefoot, 11.3 +/- 2.6 psi. The intrasubject mean differences were 0.2 psi at the hindfoot, 0.4 psi at the midfoot, and 0.3 psi at the forefoot. The data suggest that variability between different insoles is not significant. CONCLUSION: The pressure data show these insoles to be sufficiently reliable for use in patients when knowledge of foot pressure distribution is important for the relief of pain, and for designing and assessing appropriate corrective measures to relieve excessive pressure on the foot and to prevent development of pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of measurements of foot pressures while walking using the F-scan computerized system with various insole sensors. DESIGN: Ten healthy subjects were studied. Each used four different pairs of insoles while walking for three 6-second epochs per insole. Peak pressures were recorded at the hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot and analyzed. Each insole was made of pressure-sensitive 25 mm 2 cells, embedded in protective backing, and scanned electronically every 50 to 100 msec. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Conventional tile floor in a gait laboratory on 10 consecutive normal subjects. RESULTS: The mean +/- standard deviation peak pressure recorded at the hindfoot was 11.1 +/- 2.0 psi; at the midfoot, 3.5 +/- 1.5 psi; and at the forefoot, 11.3 +/- 2.6 psi. The intrasubject mean differences were 0.2 psi at the hindfoot, 0.4 psi at the midfoot, and 0.3 psi at the forefoot. The data suggest that variability between different insoles is not significant. CONCLUSION: The pressure data show these insoles to be sufficiently reliable for use in patients when knowledge of foot pressure distribution is important for the relief of pain, and for designing and assessing appropriate corrective measures to relieve excessive pressure on the foot and to prevent development of pressure ulcers.
Authors: Drew B Fineberg; Pierre Asselin; Noam Y Harel; Irina Agranova-Breyter; Stephen D Kornfeld; William A Bauman; Ann M Spungen Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Jürgen Götz; Mario Lange; Silvia Dullien; Joachim Grifka; Gernot Hertel; Clemens Baier; Franz Koeck Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Anna Maria Turcato; Marco Godi; Andrea Giordano; Marco Schieppati; Antonio Nardone Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Tala B Shahin; Kairavi V Vaishnav; Marcy Watchman; Vignesh Subbian; Ethan Larson; Evangelia Chnari; David G Armstrong Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2017-10-23
Authors: Anna Maria Turcato; Marco Godi; Marica Giardini; Ilaria Arcolin; Antonio Nardone; Andrea Giordano; Marco Schieppati Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240