| Literature DB >> 30936646 |
Ryuta Saito1,2, Shogo Okamoto1,2, Rie Nakazawa1, Masaaki Sakamoto1.
Abstract
[Purpose] This study aimed to investigate the plantar contact condition in females and to clarify the relationship between the foot alignment and floating toes classified in static and dynamic conditions. [Participants and Methods] The participants were 122 females. We evaluated the plantar contact condition, calculated the floating toe score, and classified the floating toes of the participants. The floating toes were classified into improvable and unimprovable floating toe groups based on the floating toe score measured in dynamic conditions. Furthermore, foot alignment was evaluated in 35 participants randomized and extracted from the contact toe and the improvable and unimprovable floating toe groups.Entities:
Keywords: Floating toe; Foot alignment; Pedoscope
Year: 2019 PMID: 30936646 PMCID: PMC6428644 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.31.282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
Fig. 1.Shooting situation in self-build Pedoscope.
Fig. 2.Plantar contact condition of Pedoscope and floating toe score.
Fig. 3.Result of floating toe classification.
CT: contact toe; ICT: incomplete toe; FT: floating toe; IFT: improvable floating toe; UFT: unimprovable floating toe; static condition: quiet standing condition; dynamic condition: toe-grip or forward transfer condition.
Comparison of the foot alignment measurement in each group
| CT group | IFT group | UFT group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AHI (%) | 17.0 ± 2.4 | 17.6 ± 2.2* | 15.5 ± 2.5* |
| TALI (%) | 40.1 ± 2.3 | 41.0 ± 2.1 | 40.7 ± 3.1 |
| HVA (°) | 20.5 ± 5.8 | 19.3 ± 8.3 | 18.6 ± 7.5 |
| DMVA (°) | 14.6 ± 6.7 | 11.3 ± 5.4* | 15.5 ± 5.5* |
| STJA (°) | 8.9 ± 5.5 | 6.9 ± 6.7 | 8.0 ± 4.7 |
CT: contact toe; IFT: improvable floating toe; UFT: unimprovable floating toe; AHI: Arch Height Index; TALI: Transverse Arch Length Index; HVA: Hallux Valgus Angle; DMVA: Digitus Minimus Varus Angle; STJA: Subtalar Joint Angle.
n=the extracted participants (participants before extraction).
Differences were compared multiple comparison test. *p<0.01.