| Literature DB >> 34239603 |
Maimaitirexiati Helili1, Xiang Geng1, Xin Ma1,2, Wenming Chen2, Chao Zhang1, Jiazhang Huang1, Xu Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The plantar soft tissue plays a critical role in absorbing shocks and attenuating excessive stresses during walking. Plantar soft tissue property and plantar pressure are critical information for footwear design and clinical assessment. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between plantar soft tissue hardness and plantar pressure during walking.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34239603 PMCID: PMC8241530 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5566036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Bionics Biomech ISSN: 1176-2322 Impact factor: 1.781
Figure 1Measurement of plantar soft tissue hardness by using the Shore (OO) durometer. The results were averaged for the effective hardness based on the above five regions.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of foot pressure areas determined by the plantar pressure testing system. The five regions corresponding to the hardness tests were analyzed.
General characteristics of participants (mean ± SD) (n = 59; BMI: body mass index; F: female; M: male).
| Gender | Age (y) | Height (m) | Weight (kg) | BMI (kg/m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F (32), M (27) | 43.90 ± 17.58 | 1.67 ± 0.08 | 64.01 ± 11.14 | 22.84 ± 3.25 |
Plantar soft tissue hardness and dynamic plantar pressure (mean ± SD) (n = 59, 118 feet. RF: rearfoot; MF: midfoot; FF: forefoot).
| Foot regions | Lateral RF | Medial RF | Lateral MF | Lateral FF | Medial FF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardness (Shore OO) | 34.49 ± 6.77 | 34.47 ± 6.64 | 27.95 ± 6.13 | 29.72 ± 5.47 | 28.58 ± 4.41 |
| Dynamic P (g/cm2) | 586.40 ± 103.48 | 568.45 ± 107.70 | 546.56 ± 137.16 | 543.40 ± 115.17 | 572.04 ± 111.35 |
Comparison of plantar soft tissues hardness (mean ± SD) between age groups.
| Foot regions | Age groups | F | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20-39 ( | 40-59 ( | ≥60 ( | ||||
| Right foot | Lateral RF | 33.26 ± 6.90 | 34.17 ± 4.41 | 36.40 ± 6.82 | 1.053 | 0.356 |
| Medial RF | 33.31 ± 6.66 | 34.17 ± 3.81 | 37.03 ± 8.86 | 1.529 | 0.226 | |
| Lateral MF | 26.36 ± 6.47 | 28.27 ± 4.18 | 29.91 ± 6.67 | 1.789 | 0.176 | |
| Lateral FF | 26.93 ± 4.50 | 28.43 ± 4.81 | 31.60 ± 5.49 | 6.610 | 0.003 | |
| Medial FF | 27.25 ± 4.17 | 28.21 ± 2.59 | 31.44 ± 4.97 | 5.295 | 0.008 | |
|
| ||||||
| Left foot | Lateral RF | 32.79 ± 5.79 | 34.67 ± 7.33 | 35.11 ± 6.03 | 1.096 | 0.359 |
| Medial RF | 32.20 ± 6.32 | 33.86 ± 5.00 | 36.83 ± 8.25 | 0.947 | 0.424 | |
| Lateral MF | 26.66 ± 5.83 | 29.20 ± 5.07 | 29.88 ± 7.67 | 1.231 | 0.307 | |
| Lateral FF | 28.15 ± 4.02 | 30.53 ± 5.21 | 33.54 ± 7.36 | 3.797 | 0.015 | |
| Medial FF | 27.08 ± 4.09 | 28.25 ± 3.46 | 31.84 ± 4.87 | 4.380 | 0.008 | |
Figure 3Average plantar soft tissue hardness in the five regions among age groups (RF: rearfoot; MF: midfoot; FF: forefoot).
Comparison of plantar soft tissues hardness (mean ± SD) between gender differences.
| Left foot | Age | Foot regions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lateral RF | Medial RF | Lateral MF | Lateral FF | Medial FF | ||
| Male | 39.37 ± 17.38 | 35.56 ± 7.32 | 35.3 ± 6.8 | 29.00 ± 5.91 | 28.82 ± 4.51 | 28.41 ± 4.42 |
| Female | 47.72 ± 17.23 | 33.97 ± 6.3 | 33.75 ± 6.31 | 27.45 ± 6.41 | 31.31 ± 6.31 | 28.75 ± 4.61 |
| | 0.327 | 0.313 | 0.341 | 0.092 | 0.775 | |
| Right foot | ||||||
| Male | 39.37 ± 17.38 | 35.15 ± 7.45 | 35.33 ± 7.19 | 29.00 ± 6.4 | 28.00 ± 4.82 | 28.25 ± 4.51 |
| Female | 47.72 ± 17.23 | 33.56 ± 6.27 | 33.75 ± 6.48 | 26.69 ± 5.76 | 30.32 ± 5.51 | 28.82 ± 4.3 |
| | 0.367 | 0.365 | 0.150 | 0.094 | 0.618 | |
Average pressure reduction (mean ± SD) in the five regions.
| Foot regions | Lateral RF | Medial RF | Lateral MF | Lateral FF | Medial FF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure reduction (%) | 54.70 ± 10.99 | 52.92 ± 10.83 | 51.14 ± 13.83 | 50.39 ± 9.94 | 53.17 ± 10.36 |
Pearson correlation coefficient analysis of comparing plantar soft tissue hardness with pressure reduction.
| Foot regions | Lateral RF | Medial RF | Lateral MF | Lateral FF | Medial FF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure reduction (%) | 54.70 ± 10.99 | 52.92 ± 10.83 | 51.14 ± 13.83 | 50.39 ± 9.94 | 53.17 ± 10.36 |
| Pearson correlation | -0.309 | -0.240 | -0.251 | -0.087 | -0.142 |
|
| 0.001 | 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.347 | 0.126 |
Figure 4Analysis average plantar soft tissue hardness in the five regions between gender groups (RF: rearfoot; MF: midfoot; FF: forefoot).
Figure 5Average hardness (a) and average dynamic pressure (a) in the five regions tested.