| Literature DB >> 30018939 |
Se-Yeon Park1, Hyun-Seok Bang2, Du-Jin Park1.
Abstract
This study investigated potential for foot dysfunction and plantar fasciitis according to the shape of the foot arch in young adults. Fifty-two participants were required for the present study design to achieve 80% power, 0.8 effect size (η2), and an alpha level of 0.05. This study recruited 52 young adults (30 men and 22 women). All participants voluntarily agreed to participate in the study after hearing explanations about the purpose and process of the study. They were divided into two groups of 26 according to the shape of foot with and without flat foot using the navicular drop test. The participants were measured the foot function index (FFI), range of motion (ROM) of ankle, and four-way ankle strength. Additionally, the thickness of the plantar fascia was measured using ultrasonography. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to verify the inter- and intrarater reliability of ultrasonography. The inter- and intrarater reliability was excellent (ICC2,1=0.88, ICC3,1=0.93). There were significant differences in dorsi-flexion of ankle ROM, FFI, dorsi-flexion and eversion of ankle strength, and the thickness of the plantar fascia between the two groups (P<0.05). Based on the results, the group with flat foot may gradually generate potential of the foot dysfunction and plantar fasciitis. Therefore, the interventions are necessary to improve the foot dysfunction and plantar fasciitis in people with flat foot.Entities:
Keywords: Flat foot; Foot dysfunction; Plantar fasciitis
Year: 2018 PMID: 30018939 PMCID: PMC6028224 DOI: 10.12965/jer.1836172.086
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exerc Rehabil ISSN: 2288-176X
Fig. 1Ultrasonography with transducer holder.
Fig. 2Ultrasonography of plantar fascia.
General characteristics of participants (n=52)
| Year (yr) | Height (cm) | Weight (kg) | BMI (kg/m2) | NDT (mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal foot | 22.92±2.48 | 166.96±8.67 | 61.38±11.68 | 22.27±3.35 | 4.12±1.51 |
| Flat foot | 23.54±2.76 | 170.20±7.42 | 69.88±11.98 | 24.15±3.70 | 11.08±1.60 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
BMI, body mass index; NDT, navicular drop test.
Intra- and interrater reliability of measurements of plantar fascia (n=8)
| Interrater | Intrarater | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| ICC2,1 (95% CI) | SEM | ICC3,1 (95% CI) | SEM | |
| Plantar fascia | 0.88 (0.65–0.98) | 0.15 (mm) | 0.93 (0.77–0.99) | 0.08 (mm) |
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficients; CI, confidence interval; SEM, standard error of measurement.
Comparison of thickness of plantar fascia and foot functions between two groups (n=52)
| Variable | Normal foot (n=26) | Flat foot (n=26) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFT (cm) | 0.36±0.04 | 0.47±0.03 | −10.31 | 0.00 |
| FFI (score) | 1.54±1.92 | 7.42±7.08 | −4.09 | 0.00 |
| ADF (°) | 29.91±4.63 | 25.63±6.06 | 2.86 | 0.01 |
| APF (°) | 33.73±5.72 | 33.49±4.47 | 0.17 | 0.86 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
PFT, plantar fascia thickness; FFI, foot function index; ADF, ankle dorsi-flexion; APF, ankle plantar-flexion.
Comparison of ankle strength between two groups (n=52)
| Variable | Normal foot (n=26) | Flat foot (n=26) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dorsi-flexion | 2.72±0.24 | 2.39±0.24 | 4.84 | 0.00 |
| Eversion | 2.40±0.21 | 2.14±0.18 | 4.88 | 0.00 |
| Inversion | 2.05±0.16 | 2.07±0.13 | −0.42 | 0.68 |
| Plantar-flexion | 4.11±0.20 | 4.18±0.22 | −1.21 | 0.23 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation (N/kg).