BACKGROUND: Studies using footprint-based estimates of arch height have indicated that obesity results in a lowered medial longitudinal arch in children. However, the potentially confounding effect of body composition on indirect measures of arch height, such as the arch index, has not been investigated. METHODS: This study assessed the body composition of 12 male and 12 female adults (mean age: 39.9 +/- 8.1 years, height: 1.724 +/- 0.101 m; weight: 95.1 +/- 13.7 kg, and BMI: 31.9 +/- 3.0 kg/m(2)) using bioelectrical impedance analysis to produce a two-component model of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM). The dynamic arch index also was determined from electronic footprints captured during gait using a capacitive pressure distribution platform with a resolution of 4 sensors/cm(2). RESULTS: While significant correlations were noted between FFM and the area of both the hindfoot (r =.75, p <.05) and forefoot (r =.72, p <. 05), the midfoot area was correlated only with FM (r =.54, p <.05). Similarly, the arch index was significantly correlated with the FM percentage (r =.67, p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this pilot study suggest that body composition influences arch index values in overweight and obese subjects. Consequently, body composition may be a confounding factor in interpreting footprint based estimates of arch height and, as such, these estimates would best be used with supplementary measures of body composition.
BACKGROUND: Studies using footprint-based estimates of arch height have indicated that obesity results in a lowered medial longitudinal arch in children. However, the potentially confounding effect of body composition on indirect measures of arch height, such as the arch index, has not been investigated. METHODS: This study assessed the body composition of 12 male and 12 female adults (mean age: 39.9 +/- 8.1 years, height: 1.724 +/- 0.101 m; weight: 95.1 +/- 13.7 kg, and BMI: 31.9 +/- 3.0 kg/m(2)) using bioelectrical impedance analysis to produce a two-component model of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM). The dynamic arch index also was determined from electronic footprints captured during gait using a capacitive pressure distribution platform with a resolution of 4 sensors/cm(2). RESULTS: While significant correlations were noted between FFM and the area of both the hindfoot (r =.75, p <.05) and forefoot (r =.72, p <. 05), the midfoot area was correlated only with FM (r =.54, p <.05). Similarly, the arch index was significantly correlated with the FM percentage (r =.67, p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this pilot study suggest that body composition influences arch index values in overweight and obese subjects. Consequently, body composition may be a confounding factor in interpreting footprint based estimates of arch height and, as such, these estimates would best be used with supplementary measures of body composition.
Authors: Pazit Levinger; Hylton B Menz; Mohammad R Fotoohabadi; Julian A Feller; John R Bartlett; Neil R Bergman Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: M Adoración Villarroya; J Manuel Esquivel; Concepción Tomás; Luis A Moreno; Ana Buenafé; Gloria Bueno Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Polly Qx Lim; Nora Shields; Nikolaos Nikolopoulos; Joanna T Barrett; Angela M Evans; Nicholas F Taylor; Shannon E Munteanu Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Karsten Hollander; Babette C van der Zwaard; Johanna Elsabe de Villiers; Klaus-Michael Braumann; Ranel Venter; Astrid Zech Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 2.303