File
F.R. Khan1, M.F. Chevidikunnan1, E. Bin Mulayh1
1King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Physical Therapy, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Background: Foot disorders are remarkably common, yet small number of studies have specified the biomechanical and anatomical aspects of each disorder. Among clinical visits for foot issues, approximately 90% are related to flatfoot. The prevalence of flatfoot is widely ranged from 0.6% to 77.9% due to the variations of diagnostic criteria.
Purpose: The study was undertaken to compare between normal foot, flatfoot with positive Foot Pressure index-6 (FPI), and flatfoot with positive FPI and radiographic measures by using plantar pressure analysis.
Methods: 62 feet were examined in the study, and the participants were healthy female subjects aged between 15 and 25. According to the outcomes of FPI and X-ray radiographs, each sample was assigned to one of the three groups (normal: negative FPI; FPI+: FPI ≥ +6; X-ray and FPI+: Arch Angle ≥ 165º, Calcaneus Pitch ≤ 12.3º, FPI ≥ +6). The findings were compared by using plantar pressure variables to evaluate the surface area, force, and pressure for each area, as well as measuring the static and dynamic Arch Index (AI) for each group.
Results: The final analysis included 48 feet (normal: 16; FPI+: 16; X-ray and FPI+: 16). As per normal group compared to X-ray and FPI+ group, there was a significant difference in the surface area, force, and pressure in the medial foot (27.04 ± 13.53, P-value: 0.01, 95% CI: -26.58 to -3.62; 7.64 ± 6.33, P-value: 0.04, 95% CI: -10.37 to -0.09; 67.81 ± 19.05, P-value: 0.01, 95% CI: -56.78 to -6.35; respectively). Likewise, the static and dynamic AI among the normal group and the X-ray and FPI+ group showed significant differences (0.23 ± 0.09, P-value: 0.003, 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.04; 0.25 ± 0.04, P-value: 0.003, 95% CI: -0.13 to -0.02; respectively).
Conclusion(s): The findings demonstrated a significant difference among the normal feet and flatfeet with positive FPI and X-ray in the medial foot area, suggesting that medial foot can be a critical indicator to diagnose flatfoot. Additionally, the current study supports the use of plantar pressure measures to diagnose flatfoot as the characteristics of flatfeet estimated by radiographs were identifiable through this modality.
Implications: The current comparison can be useful for assessing flatfoot as it has addressed the characteristics of foot areas and identified features of truly positive flatfeet diagnosed by X-ray through plantar pressure measures.
Funding, acknowledgements: The authors did not receive any fundings.
Keywords: Flatfoot, Plantar Pressure Distribution, Foot Pressure Index
Topic: Musculoskeletal: lower limb
Did this work require ethics approval? Yes
Institution: King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Committee: The National Bioethical Committee of Saudi Arabia NACSA
Ethics number: 05-CEGMR-Bioeth-2019
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
