Skip to main content
Download PDF

Volume 5 Supplement 1

3rd Congress of the International Foot and Ankle Biomechanics Community

Marker-based foot posture assessment in children

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research volume 5, Article number: O17 (2012) Cite this article

Background

An ideal measure of foot posture should be repeatable, representative of foot position, quantitative, objective, comprehensive, and suited to static and dynamic assessment. The Oxford Foot Model (OFM) is a clinically tested and validated model [1] used to assess foot deformity during walking. This study aims to use relevant components of the OFM to provide a quantitative foot posture assessment method. An assessment of OFM components which distinguish neutral, flat, and symptomatic flat feet is presented here.

Materials and methods

A clinical assessment of the lower limbs was performed on 89 children (14 patients with symptomatic flat foot (SF, n=28 feet), and 75 volunteers with asymptomatic feet and no known pathology; 39 males, 50 females; 4.9 to 17.1 years old). Weightbearing clinical assessment of the asymptomatic group was used to classify the foot as normal (NN, n=81) or flat (NF, n=69). Reflective markers were placed at known locations on the lower limb and foot [1], and were tracked using a 12 camera Vicon MX system. Mean values of each OFM Euler angle were calculated during three seconds of quiet standing. Each foot was treated as an independent sample and ANOVA tests were used to assess whether OFM angles differed between groups.

Results and discussion

Five OFM angles were found to be different between groups (Table 1, Figure 1). The eversion of the hindfoot relative to the tibia was significantly different between all groups (Figure 1). Foot descriptions used for grouping are largely based on the degree of hindfoot eversion so a difference between normal and flat feet could be expected. The difference between SF and NF may reflect severity. The forefoot was also more pronated relative to the tibia in the flatfooted populations (Figure 2-3). This again could be a reflection of the original classification technique. The increased forefoot abduction relative to the hindfoot and tibia in the symptomatic population (Figure 4-5) may be a reflection of a midfoot break associated with more severe flat foot.

Table 1 p-values from ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc tests. Abbreviations described in Figure 1.
Full size table
Figure 1
figure1

The box plots of mean angles of a standing trial found to be statistically different between groups. NN – normal child, neutral foot; NF – normal child, flat foot; SF – child with symptoms, flat foot. FF – forefoot, HF – hindfoot, TB – tibia

Full size image
Figure 2
figure2

The box plots of mean angles of a standing trial found to be statistically different between groups. NN – normal child, neutral foot; NF – normal child, flat foot; SF – child with symptoms, flat foot. FF – forefoot, HF – hindfoot, TB – tibia

Full size image
Figure 3
figure3

The box plots of mean angles of a standing trial found to be statistically different between groups. NN – normal child, neutral foot; NF – normal child, flat foot; SF – child with symptoms, flat foot. FF – forefoot, HF – hindfoot, TB – tibia

Full size image
Figure 4
figure4

The box plots of mean angles of a standing trial found to be statistically different between groups. NN – normal child, neutral foot; NF – normal child, flat foot; SF – child with symptoms, flat foot. FF – forefoot, HF – hindfoot, TB – tibia

Full size image
Figure 5
figure5

The box plots of mean angles of a standing trial found to be statistically different between groups. NN – normal child, neutral foot; NF – normal child, flat foot; SF – child with symptoms, flat foot. FF – forefoot, HF – hindfoot, TB – tibia

Full size image

Conclusions

Elements of the OFM may be used to assess flat feet. Some measures have been shown to be associated only with symptomatic flat foot; these may be important in predicting the future for asymptomatic flat feet. The method is currently being applied to gait to determine if the parameters are relevant during walking.

References

  1. 1.

    Stebbins J, Harrington M, Thompson N, Zavatsky A, Theologis T: Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children. Gait Posture. 2006, 23: 401-410. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.03.002.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Catriona M Kerr & Amy B Zavatsky

  2. Oxford Gait Laboratory, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust, Oxford, UK

    Julie Stebbins & Tim Theologis

Authors
  1. Catriona M Kerr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie Stebbins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Theologis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amy B Zavatsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catriona M Kerr.

Rights and permissions

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/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kerr, C.M., Stebbins, J., Theologis, T. et al. Marker-based foot posture assessment in children. J Foot Ankle Res 5, O17 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-5-S1-O17

Download citation

Keywords

  • Clinical Assessment
  • Assessment Method
  • Euler Angle
  • Classification Technique
  • Ideal Measure

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

ISSN: 1757-1146