BACKGROUND: Differences in foot structure are thought to be associated with differences in foot function during movement. Many foot pathologies are of a biomechanical nature and often associated with foot type. Fundamental to the understanding of foot pathomechanics is the question: do different foot types have distinctly different structure and function? AIM: To determine if objective measures of foot structure and function differ between planus, rectus and cavus foot types in asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: Sixty-one asymptomatic healthy adults between 18 and 77 years old, that had the same foot type bilaterally (44 planus feet, 54 rectus feet, and 24 cavus feet), were recruited. Structural and functional measurements were taken using custom equipment, an emed-x plantar pressure measuring device, a GaitMat II gait pattern measurement system, and a goniometer. Generalized Estimation Equation modeling was employed to determine if each dependent variable of foot structure and function was significantly different across foot type while accounting for potential dependencies between sides. Post hoc testing was performed to assess pair wise comparisons. RESULTS: Several measures of foot structure (malleolar valgus index and arch height index) were significantly different between foot types. Gait pattern parameters were invariant across foot types. Peak pressure, maximum force, pressure-time-integral, force-time-integral and contact area were significantly different in several medial forefoot and arch locations between foot types. Planus feet exhibited significantly different center of pressure excursion indices compared to rectus and cavus feet. CONCLUSIONS: Planus, rectus and cavus feet exhibited significantly different measures of foot structure and function.
BACKGROUND: Differences in foot structure are thought to be associated with differences in foot function during movement. Many foot pathologies are of a biomechanical nature and often associated with foot type. Fundamental to the understanding of foot pathomechanics is the question: do different foot types have distinctly different structure and function? AIM: To determine if objective measures of foot structure and function differ between planus, rectus and cavus foot types in asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: Sixty-one asymptomatic healthy adults between 18 and 77 years old, that had the same foot type bilaterally (44 planus feet, 54 rectus feet, and 24 cavus feet), were recruited. Structural and functional measurements were taken using custom equipment, an emed-x plantar pressure measuring device, a GaitMat II gait pattern measurement system, and a goniometer. Generalized Estimation Equation modeling was employed to determine if each dependent variable of foot structure and function was significantly different across foot type while accounting for potential dependencies between sides. Post hoc testing was performed to assess pair wise comparisons. RESULTS: Several measures of foot structure (malleolar valgus index and arch height index) were significantly different between foot types. Gait pattern parameters were invariant across foot types. Peak pressure, maximum force, pressure-time-integral, force-time-integral and contact area were significantly different in several medial forefoot and arch locations between foot types. Planus feet exhibited significantly different center of pressure excursion indices compared to rectus and cavus feet. CONCLUSIONS: Planus, rectus and cavus feet exhibited significantly different measures of foot structure and function.
Authors: Jonathan C Levy; Mark S Mizel; L Samuel Wilson; William Fox; Kathleen McHale; Dean C Taylor; H Thomas Temple Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: William R Ledoux; Jane B Shofer; Douglas G Smith; Katrina Sullivan; Shane G Hayes; Mathieu Assal; Gayle E Reiber Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2005 Sep-Oct
Authors: William R Ledoux; Jane B Shofer; Jessie H Ahroni; Douglas G Smith; Bruce J Sangeorzan; Edward J Boyko Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Lasse Hagen; Jonas Paul Pape; Mark Kostakev; Christian-Dominik Peterlein Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Arunima Awale; Thomas J Hagedorn; Alyssa B Dufour; Hylton B Menz; Virginia A Casey; Marian T Hannan Journal: Gerontology Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 5.140
Authors: Joseph J Krzak; Daniel M Corcos; Diane L Damiano; Adam Graf; Donald Hedeker; Peter A Smith; Gerald F Harris Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Marc J Heronemus; Kaitlin Rabe; Irina Tolstykh; K Douglas Gross; Barton L Wise; Michael C Nevitt; Cora E Lewis; Howard J Hillstrom; Neil A Segal Journal: PM R Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Yvonne M Golightly; Marian T Hannan; Alyssa B Dufour; Howard J Hillstrom; Joanne M Jordan Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Rajshree Mootanah; Jinsup Song; Mark W Lenhoff; Jocelyn F Hafer; Sherry I Backus; David Gagnon; Jonathan T Deland; Howard J Hillstrom Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Marie-Hélène Canu; Fabrice Fryziel; Jean-Pierre Noel; Vincent Tiffreau; Marc Digumber; Bruno Bastide Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Jinsup Song; Reagan Kane; Dana N Tango; Stephanie S Vander Veur; James Furmato; Eugene Komaroff; Gary D Foster Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 2.840