Volume 7 Supplement 1

4th Congress of the International Foot and Ankle Biomechanics Community

Open Access

Association between foot types defined by static and dynamic measures, and the centre of pressure during gait

  • Su Liao1,
  • Hannah L Javis2,
  • Anmin Liu2,
  • Christopher J Nester2Email author,
  • Peter P Bowden2,
  • Richard K Jones2 and
  • Kaiyu Xiong1
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20147(Suppl 1):A55

DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-7-S1-A55

Published: 8 April 2014

Background

Foot types (e.g. pronated, supinated foot) are used for clinical reasoning [1] and widely assumed to be related to centre of pressure (COP) patterns [2, 3]. Specifically, a pronated foot will demonstrate a medially deviated COP. It follows that COP could be a measure of foot type and inferences about function extrapolated from it. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether COP parameters differ between foot types.

Methods

Static foot posture, foot kinematics and COP data were collected on 90 healthy subjects during walking (Figure 1). The subjects were classified as pronated, supinated, and neutral groups using three static and four dynamic methods (table 1). COP lateral and medial excursion area, COP lateral medial difference (COP_LMD), and COP index (COP_I) were calculated for different phases of stance [46]. Independent T test and correlations were calculated among the different groups.
Figure 1

Five segment foot kinematic model.

Table 1

Classification method

Pronators

Supinators

Foot Posture Index(FPI)

≥7

≤-1

Resting Calcaneal Stance Position (RCSP)

≤-2°

≥3°

Difference between NCSP* and RCSP

≥8°

≤4°

Peak Rearfoot Eversion(PRE)

≤-6.1°

≥-1.1°

Time of Peak Rear foot Eversion (TPRE)

≥38%

≤26%

Range of Rearfoot Eversion (RRE)

≥16.3°

≤10.5°

Maximum Mid Foot Dorsiflexion

≥6.4°

≤1.1°

*NCSP:neutral calcaneal stance position

Results

Pronated feet (based on FPI) demonstrated more medial excursion of the COP from heel strike to heel off (p<0.05). Pronated feet classified by NCSP-RCSP demonstrated higher COP_I during HO-TO (p<0.05).

Supinated feet classified by NCSP-RCSP and RRE had more medial excursion of the COP (COP-ME) during HO-TO (p<0.05). Feet classified as supinated by TPRE resulted in a greater COP-LMD in a stance (p<0.05) and their COP_I was statistically significantly higher. Feet classified as supinated by RRE showed higher COP-LMD value during HO-TO (p<0.05). The statistical results showed a weak relationship between COP parameters of different foot types (r<0.27). Dynamic measures of foot type showed a slightly stringer association to COP measures than static measures of foot type.

Conclusion

Over all, whilst there were some differences between foot types in some COP measures, the meaning of the observed differences does not support the hypothesis that COP parameters are strongly indicative of specific foot types. Thus, COP measures should not be used to infer foot kinematic nor foot function.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Sport Science College, Beijing Sport University
(2)
School of Health Sciences, University of Salford

References

  1. Rao Smita, Riskowsk L Jody, Hannan T Marian: Musculoskeletal conditions of the foot and ankle: Assessments and treatment options. Review Article Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology. 2012, 26 (3): 345-368. 10.1016/j.berh.2012.05.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Dixon SJ: Application of Centre-of-Pressure Data to Indicate Rear foot Inversion-Eversion in Shod Running. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2006, 96 (4): 305-12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Han TR, Paik NJ, Im MS: Quantification of the path of centre of pressure (COP) using an F-scan in-shoe transducer. 1999, 10: 248-54.Google Scholar
  4. Redmond AC, Crane1 YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 2008, 1 (6):
  5. Sobel Ellen, et al: Re-evaluation of the Relaxed Calcaneal Stance Position- Reliability and Normal Values in Children and Adults. J Am Podiatric Med. Assoc. 1999, 89 (5): 258-64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Landorf K, Keenan AM, Rushworth RL: Foot Orthosis Prescription Habits of Australian and New Zealand Podiatric Physicians. J Am Podiatric Med. Assoc. 2001, 91 (4): 174-83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Liao et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement