| Literature DB >> 30265689 |
Jitka Marencakova1, Tomas Maly1, Dai Sugimoto2,3,4, Tomas Gryc1, Frantisek Zahalka1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The unique foot morphology and distinctive functions facilitate complex tasks and strategies such as standing, walking, and running. In those weight-bearing activities, postural stability (PS) plays an important role. Correlations among foot type, PS, and other musculoskeletal problems that increase sport injury risk are known. However, long-term associations among the foot type, the PS, and body weight (BW) distribution are lacking. Thus, the purpose of this study was to longitudinally identify changes in foot morphology, PS, and symmetry in BW distribution during adolescence among elite male soccer players.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30265689 PMCID: PMC6162085 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of participants and body weight distribution in 3 consecutive years (T1, T2, T3).
| Parameters | Descriptive statistics | RM ANOVA | Bonferroni’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | 95% CI interval | F | p | ηp2 | ||||
| Lower | Upper | ||||||||
| Body height (cm) | T1 | 174.63 | 5.71 | 172.67 | 176.59 | 70.79 | <0.01 | 0.68 | T1 vs. T2T1 vs. T3T2 vs. T3 |
| T2 | 175.90 | 5.74 | 173.93 | 177.87 | |||||
| T3 | 177.94 | 5.45 | 176.07 | 179.81 | |||||
| Body mass (kg) | T1 | 64.11 | 6.17 | 62.01 | 66.23 | 76.32 | <0.01 | 0.69 | T1 vs. T2T1 vs. T3T2 vs. T3 |
| T2 | 65.95 | 6.17 | 63.84 | 68.07 | |||||
| T3 | 70.09 | 6.45 | 67.89 | 72.31 | |||||
| Foot size (UK) | T1 | 8.63 | 1.03 | 8.23 | 8.98 | 11.68 | <0.01 | 0.26 | T1 vs. T2T1 vs. T3 |
| T2 | 8.87 | 1.00 | 8.53 | 9.22 | |||||
| T3 | 8.91 | 1.00 | 8.57 | 9.26 | |||||
| BWDPL (%) | T1 | 46.91 | 8.71 | 43.92 | 49.91 | 0.03 | >0.05 | 0.00 | |
| T2 | 47.11 | 11.11 | 43.30 | 50.93 | |||||
| T3 | 46.69 | 7.49 | 44.11 | 49.26 | |||||
| BWDNL (%) | T1 | 53.23 | 8.71 | 50.23 | 56.22 | 0.19 | >0.05 | 0.00 | |
| T2 | 52.86 | 11.13 | 49.04 | 56.68 | |||||
| T3 | 53.10 | 7.58 | 50.50 | 55.70 | |||||
| BWDΔ (%) | T1 | 13.51 | 12.50 | 9.22 | 17.81 | 0.53 | >0.05 | 0.02 | |
| T2 | 15.17 | 17.07 | 9.31 | 21.04 | |||||
| T3 | 12.19 | 10.79 | 8.48 | 15.89 | |||||
BWDPL, body weight distribution preferred leg; BWDNL, body weight distribution non-preferred leg; BWDΔ, body weight distribution difference between legs; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.
Centre of reassure displacement time dependence.
| Parameters | Descriptive statistics | RM ANOVA | Bonferroni’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | 95% CI interval | F | p | ηp2 | ||||
| Lower | Upper | ||||||||
| T1 | 1617.11 | 520.22 | 1438.41 | 1795.82 | 5.07 | < 0.01 | 0.13 | T1 vs. T2T1 vs. T3 | |
| T2 | 1405.29 | 462.76 | 1246.32 | 1564.25 | |||||
| T3 | 1370.46 | 373.94 | 1242.01 | 1298.91 | |||||
| T1 | 1661.31 | 460.07 | 1503.27 | 1819.36 | 3.54 | <0.05 | 0.09 | T1 vs. T3 | |
| T2 | 1562.31 | 523.55 | 1382.47 | 1742.16 | |||||
| T3 | 1414.69 | 534.69 | 1231.01 | 1598.36 | |||||
| T1 | 333.69 | 229.71 | 254.78 | 412.59 | 3.34 | <0.05 | 0.09 | T1 vs. T3 | |
| T2 | 283.03 | 287.14 | 184.39 | 381.66 | |||||
| T3 | 196.29 | 172.63 | 136.99 | 255.59 | |||||
TTWPL, total travel way preferred leg; TTWNL, total travel way non-preferred leg; TTWΔ, total travel way difference; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; T1, T2, T3 time of measurement.
Chippaux-Smirak index time dependence.
| Parameters | Descriptive statistics | RM ANOVA | Bonferroni’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | 95% CI interval | F | p | ηp2 | ||||
| Lower | Upper | ||||||||
| T1 | 39.50 | 8.35 | 36.63 | 42.37 | 5.08 | < 0.01 | 0.13 | T2 vs. T3 | |
| T2 | 38.99 | 9.10 | 35.86 | 42.11 | |||||
| T3 | 42.06 | 8.75 | 39.05 | 45.06 | |||||
| T1 | 38.01 | 7.85 | 35.31 | 40.70 | 10.87 | < 0.01 | 0.24 | T1 vs. T3T2 vs. T3 | |
| T2 | 37.04 | 9.36 | 33.82 | 40.25 | |||||
| T3 | 41.91 | 8.98 | 38.82 | 44.99 | |||||
CSIPL, Chippaux–Smirak index preferred leg; CSINL, Chippaux–Smirak index non-preferred leg; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; T1, T2, T3 time of measurement.
Fig 1Foot type distribution according to CSI in time T1 (n = 70).
Fig 2Time dependent progression of foot type distribution (n = 70).