Literature DB >> 29504581

Effect of footwear on standing balance in healthy young adult males.

Ahmad H Alghadir1, Hamayun Zafar, Shahnawaz Anwer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of footwear on standing balance in healthy young adult males.
METHODS: Thirty healthy male participants aged 20-30 years were tested for standing balance on the Balance Master on three occasions, including wearing a sandal, standard shoe, or no footwear (barefoot). The tests of postural stability include; "Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance" (mCTSIB), "Unilateral Stance" (US), and the "Limits of Stability" (LOS). The balance scores (mCTSIB, US, and LOS) was analyzed.
RESULTS: There was a significant effect between footwear conditions for mCTIB with eye closed on a firm surface (p=0.002). There was a significant effect between footwear conditions for the US with eye open and closed (p⟨0.05). There was a significant effect between footwear conditions for LOS reaction time during forward movement (p=0.02). Similarly, there was a significant effect between footwear conditions for LOS reaction time during left side movement (p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Wearing sandals compared to bare feet significantly increased postural sway and reduced stability in healthy young adult males. However, wearing a standard shoe compared to bare feet did not significantly affect balance scores in standing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29504581      PMCID: PMC5881131     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact        ISSN: 1108-7161            Impact factor:   2.041


Introduction

Footwear has a vital role in improving well-being of any individuals. Previous study reported an association between footwear and disorders; therefore, considering footwear characteristics during management program is important[1]. Footwear facilitates sensory information to the foot and control postural stability through the touch and proprioceptive system[2,3]. The tactile stimulation is detected by the cutaneous mechanoreceptors of the plantar surface of the feet and gives information of plantar pressure distribution to the central nervous system2. Previous study reported an impaired standing balance, if plantar surface afferents are not intact[4]. Whereas, stimulation of the cutaneous mechanoreceptors can enhance postural stability[5-7]. The type of Footwear and their modifications, including foot orthoses, shoe inserts, and insoles can stimulate tactile as well as proprioceptive systems[8,9]. In addition, previous study reported increased thresholds of plantar cutaneous vibrotactile particularly in the elderly[7,10]. The maintenance of static and dynamic balance is a vital to reduce risk of injuries in any sports. Type of footwear may influence the sensory feedback quality from the feet[11]. Footwear often designed to give support and stability to the foot, therefore, potentially affecting balance and function of the foot[1]. However, previous study reported 42% of fall in a group of 106 older people during wearing walking shoes[12]. Another study reported postural instability in the elderly population who has poor footwear type and poor footwear characteristics[13]. In addition, Keegan et al.[14] reported an increased risk of a foot fracture from a fall in individuals using slip-on shoes and sandals. Furthermore, Murphy et al.[15] had suggested that the shoes were an important element in the development of human posture. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the effect of footwear on standing balance in healthy young adult males.

Materials and methods

Participants

Thirty healthy adult male aged older than18 years were recruited from the college of applied medical sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh. The present study was approved by the institution ethics committee, Rehabilitation Research Chair, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Each participant provided a written informed consent prior to the experiment. Individuals were excluded if they had a history of neurological disorders that can affect balance.

Procedures

Participants’ demographic data such as age, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were recorded prior to testing. The Balance Master (NeuroCom Balance Master®; Natus Medical Incorporated, CA, USA) was used to measure the Postural stability[16]. The Balance Master utilizes a force platform to locate the center of gravity (COG) and provides various tasks for challenging balance. For all the tests, the participants were tested with three occasions, including wearing a sandal, standard shoe, and no footwear (barefoot). The tests of postural stability include; “Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance” (mCTSIB), “Unilateral Stance” (US), and the “Limits of Stability” (LOS). The mCTSIB includes 4 conditions: eye open on the firm surface, eye closed on the firm surface, eyes open on the foam, and eyes closed on the foam[17]. The mCTSIB tests measure subject’s “sway velocity” (degree/sec) from 3 trials of 20 s duration for each of the four given conditions[18]. The US assessed the postural stability during single leg standing (right and left) in 2 conditions: eye open and eye closed. The US test measure subject’s “sway velocity” (degree/sec) from 3 trials of 20 s duration for each of the given conditions[19,20]. The LOS assessed the subject’s stability limits without losing balance in a given directions. The LOS measures the “movement reaction time” (sec) and “movement velocity” (degrees/sec) from 3 trials of 20 s duration for given directions[21,22]. In all the test conditions, the participants asked to stand in the marked position on the Balance master, with their hands positioned on the iliac crests[23]. Participants had given a 15-second rest period between each trial and asked to perform a 5-m walk between each test condition. The order of all the test condition was randomized to minimize learning effect.

Statistical analysis

SPSS version 21 was used to analyze the data. The balance scores (mCTSIB, US, and LOS) between wearing a sandal, standard shoe, or no footwear (barefoot) was analyzed using the “repeated measures analysis of variance” with “Bonferroni’s correction”. A p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The 30 male participants with mean (SD) of age, weight, height, and BMI were 23.1 (2.12), 71.1 (13.8), 1.69 (.05), and 24.69 (4.61), respectively. [Table 1] presents the comparison of balance scores between a sandal, standard shoe, or no footwear (barefoot) conditions. [Table 2] presents the comparison of balance scores between eyes open and closed conditions.
Table 1

Comparison of balance scores between a sandal, standard shoe, or no footwear (barefoot) conditions.

VariablesBarefoot (BF) Mean ± SDStandard shoe (SS) Mean ± SDSandal (S) Mean ± SDANOVABF vs SSBF vs SSS vs S
Fpppp
mCTIB Firm - EO (deg/sec)0.38 ±0.190.41 ±0.380.49 ±0.141.7840.17
mCTIB Firm - EC (deg/sec)0.31 ±0.070.35 ±0.180.52 ±0.366.8610.0020.990.0020.02
mCTIB Foam - EO (deg/sec)0.67 ±0.140.73 ±0.180.78 ±0.173.3490.040.490.0340.73
mCTIB Foam - EC (deg/sec)1.29 ±0.371.35 ±0.401.62 ±0.366.2950.0030.970.0040.02
US - EO Left (deg/sec)0.90 ±0.210.98 ±0.451.23 ±0.653.9040.020.890.030.14
US - EC Left (deg/sec)2.46 ±0.922.62 ±0.803.08 ±1.063.5330.030.890.040.18
US - EO Right (deg/sec)0.89 ±0.251.08 ±0.461.34 ±0.884.2930.020.700.010.27
US - EC Right (deg/sec)2.54 ±0.922.65 ±0.943.17 ±1.223.1810.050.950.040.16
LOS - RT Forward (sec)0.89 ±0.300.89 ±0.281.10 ±0.364.3440.020.880.040.04
LOS - RT Right (sec)0.83 ±0.290.87 ±0.300.97 ±0.282.0280.14
LOS - RT Back (sec)0.77 ±0.280.78 ±0.320.90 ±0.261.9000.16
LOS - RT Left (sec)0.79 ±0.270.88 ±0.260.99 ±0.284.4290.010.560.010.31

mCTIB, Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance; US, Unilateral Stance; EO, Eye open; EC, Eye closed; LOS, Limits of Stability; RT, Reaction time.

Table 2

Comparison of balance scores between eyes open and closed conditions.

Footwear conditionsBalance outcomeEyes openEyes closedt-test
tp
Barefoot (BF)mCTIB on firm surface0.38 ±0.190.31 ±0.071.9480.06
mCTIB on foam surface0.67 ±0.141.29 ±0.37-7.991<0.001
US on left leg0.90 ±0.212.46 ±0.92-9.970<0.001
US on right leg0.89 ±0.252.54 ±0.92-10.862<0.001
Standard shoe (SS)mCTIB on firm surface0.41 ±0.380.35 ±0.180.7340.47
mCTIB on foam surface0.73 ±0.181.35 ±0.40-7.757<0.001
US on left leg0.98 ±0.452.62 ±0.80-13.895<0.001
US on right leg1.08 ±0.462.65 ±0.94-8.704<0.001
Sandal (S)mCTIB on firm surface0.49 ±0.140.52 ±0.36-0.3940.69
mCTIB on foam surface0.78 ±0.171.62 ±0.36-13.835<0.001
US on left leg1.23 ±0.653.08 ±1.06-11.765<0.001
US on right leg1.34 ±0.883.17 ±1.22-11.235<0.001

mCTIB, Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance; US, Unilateral Stance.

Comparison of balance scores between a sandal, standard shoe, or no footwear (barefoot) conditions. mCTIB, Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance; US, Unilateral Stance; EO, Eye open; EC, Eye closed; LOS, Limits of Stability; RT, Reaction time. Comparison of balance scores between eyes open and closed conditions. mCTIB, Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance; US, Unilateral Stance. There were no significant effects between footwear conditions for mCTIB with eye open on firm surface (p=0.17). However, there were significant effects between footwear conditions for mCTIB with eye closed on firm surface (p=0.002). Post-hoc analyses indicate a significant differences in mCTIB between barefoot and sandal (p=0.002), and between standard shoe and sandal (p=0.02), but not between barefoot and standard shoe (p=0.99). In addition, there were significant effects between footwear conditions for mCTIB with eye open and closed on foam surface (p=0.04 and p=0.003, respectively). Post-hoc analyses indicate a significant differences in mCTIB with eye open between barefoot and sandal (p=0.03), but not between standard shoe and sandal (p=0.73), and between barefoot and standard shoe (p=0.49). However, there were significant differences in mCTIB with eye closed between barefoot and sandal (p=0.004), and between standard shoe and sandal (p=0.02), but not between barefoot and standard shoe (p=0.97). There were significant effects between footwear conditions for US on left foot with eye open and closed (p=0.02 and p=0.03, respectively). Similarly, there were significant effects between footwear conditions for US on right foot with eye open and closed (p=0.02 and p=0.05, respectively). Post-hoc analyses indicate a significant differences in US on left foot with eye open and closed between barefoot and sandal (p=0.03 and 0.04, respectively), but not between standard shoe and sandal (p=0.14 and p=0.18, respectively), and between barefoot and standard shoe (p=0.89 and p=0.89, respectively). Similarly, there were significant differences in US on right foot with eye open and closed between barefoot and sandal (p=0.01 and 0.04, respectively), but not between standard shoe and sandal (p=0.27 and p=0.16, respectively), and between barefoot and standard shoe (p=0.70 and p=0.95, respectively). There were significant effects between footwear conditions for LOS reaction time during forward movement (p=0.02). Post-hoc analyses indicate a significant differences in LOS reaction time during forward movement between barefoot and sandal (p=0.04), and between standard shoe and sandal (p=0.04), but not between barefoot and standard shoe (p=0.88). Similarly, there were significant effects between footwear conditions for LOS reaction time during left side movement (p=0.01). Post-hoc analyses indicate a significant differences in LOS reaction time during left side movement between barefoot and sandal (p=0.01), but not between standard shoe and sandal (p=0.31), and between barefoot and standard shoe (p=0.56). In addition, there were no significant effects between footwear conditions for LOS reaction time during backward and right side movement (p=0.14 and p=0.16, respectively). There were insignificant differences in the postural sway measured by mCTIB on firm surface when tested in eyes closed condition compared to eyes open test conditions in all the three footwear conditions (p>0.05). There were significant differences in the postural sway measured by mCTIB on foam surface and US on left and right leg when tested in eyes closed condition compared to eyes open test conditions in all the three footwear conditions (p<0.001).

Discussion

The present study aimed to evaluate the differences between wearing a sandal, standard shoe, or no footwear (barefoot), in relation to postural stability measured by mCTSIB, US, and the LOS in healthy young adult males. The findings of the present study indicates that the wearing a sandal compared to bare feet significantly affect balance scores in mCTSIB with eye closed on firm surface, mCTSIB with eye open and closed on foam surface, US on left and right foot with eye open and closed, and the LOS reaction time during forward and left side movement. However, wearing a standard shoe compared to bare feet did not significantly affect balance scores in standing. A previous study noted significantly increased medio-lateral and antero-posterior sway in eyes-closed testing in all footwear types compared to bare feet[24]. Another study reported less sway in bare feet quiet standing compared to wearing own shoes and other footwear conditions[25]. In addition, AP sway was increased in older adults wearing athletic footwear compared to bare feet[26]. The tactile postural control mechanisms which transfer required updated sensory information to the CNS for the maintenance of balance can be altered by footwear[24]. In the present study, there were increased postural sway and reduced stability when tested in eyes closed condition compared to eyes open test conditions in all the three footwear conditions. Similarly, previous studies reported increased postural sway and reduced stability when tested in eyes closed condition compared to eyes open test conditions[26,27]. The importance of vision in postural control is reported in the previous study[28]. In the preset study, there were increased postural sway and reduced stability when tested with standard shoes compared to sandal. Previous study reported that the poor footwear characteristics of sandal such as minimal heel counter stiffness and poor motion control resulting negative effect on balance[24]. The present study had some potential limitations. As this was a comparative study the small number of participants minimizes the generalizability of the results. The result of present study is limited to only healthy young adult males. Future research of footwear’s effect on balance in young adult males who require stability (such as, acute ankle injuries, or lower extremity orthopedic conditions) would give further knowledge about the importance of footwear on balance in the younger adult population. The present study concludes that the wearing a sandal compared to bare feet significantly increased postural sway and reduced stability in healthy young adult males. However, wearing a standard shoe compared to bare feet did not significantly affect balance scores in standing. Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance Unilateral Stance Limits of Stability Center of Gravity
  25 in total

1.  Effects of footwear on measurements of balance and gait in women between the ages of 65 and 93 years.

Authors:  S A Arnadottir; V S Mercer
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2000-01

2.  Barefoot running: does it prevent injuries?

Authors:  Kelly Murphy; Emily J Curry; Elizabeth G Matzkin
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Effects of footwear features on balance and stepping in older people.

Authors:  Jasmine C Menant; Julie R Steele; Hylton B Menz; Bridget J Munro; Stephen R Lord
Journal:  Gerontology       Date:  2008-02-04       Impact factor: 5.140

4.  The evaluation of walking footwear on postural stability in healthy older adults: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Angela Brenton-Rule; Sandra Bassett; Annie Walsh; Keith Rome
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Influence of footwear midsole material hardness on dynamic balance control during unexpected gait termination.

Authors:  Stephen D Perry; Alison Radtke; Chris R Goodwin
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 2.840

6.  A study of the clinical test of sensory interaction and balance.

Authors:  H Cohen; C A Blatchly; L L Gombash
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1993-06

7.  Randomized clinical trial into the impact of rigid foot orthoses on balance parameters in excessively pronated feet.

Authors:  K Rome; C L Brown
Journal:  Clin Rehabil       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.477

8.  Shoe characteristics and balance in older women.

Authors:  S R Lord; G M Bashford
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  The effects of sandals on postural stability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Angela Brenton-Rule; Stacey D'Almeida; Sandra Bassett; Matthew Carroll; Nicola Dalbeth; Keith Rome
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 2.063

10.  Development and evaluation of a tool for the assessment of footwear characteristics.

Authors:  Christian J Barton; Daniel Bonanno; Hylton B Menz
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 2.303

View more
  4 in total

1.  Static Postural Balance in Modern Pentathletes: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Dorota Sadowska; Tomasz Sacewicz; Małgorzata Lichota; Justyna Krzepota; Maria Ładyga
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-05-18       Impact factor: 3.390

2.  Immediate impact of extremity manipulation on dual task performance: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.

Authors:  Christopher A Malaya; Joshua Haworth; Katherine A Pohlman; Dean L Smith
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2021-02-05

3.  An interventional exploratory study to assess the effect of footwear on postural stability and strategy during quiet standing.

Authors:  J Hausselle; A G Haddox; J Kasitz; A Azoug
Journal:  Int Biomech       Date:  2021-12

4.  Gender and leg-dominance differences in shoe properties and foot injuries in badminton: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Siqin Shen; Wing-Kai Lam; Jin Teng; Sheng-Wei Jia; Julien S Baker; Ukadike C Ugbolue; Gusztáv Fekete; Yaodong Gu
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 2.303

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.