Skip to content

Advertisement

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

The effects of pronated foot posture and medial heel and forefoot wedge orthoses on static balance in older people

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20147(Suppl 1):A17

https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-7-S1-A17

Published: 8 April 2014

Background

Aging has been associated with increasing foot pronation [1] and changes in foot mobility and posture which may influence standing balance [2, 3]. Orthotic interventions change foot posture [4] and load distribution under the foot [5] and therefore may have important effects on balance in older people.

Objective

To investigate whether a pronated foot posture is associated with poorer standing balance in older people and whether medial heel and forefoot wedge orthoses affect their standing balance.

Design

Between groups, repeated-measures design.

Methods

Ten healthy older people with a pronated foot posture (age 67.1± 5.5 years) and sixteen healthy elderly with normal foot posture (age 67.1± 5.9 years) were recruited.The Foot Posture Index (FPI) was used to determine pronated and normal foot posture. Static balance in double limb stance was assessed using Kistler force plate measures during four shod conditions: 1) 5° medial heel and forefoot wedge (W5); 2) 8° medial heel and forefoot wedge (W8); 3) Control insole for W5 (flat EVA base with the same thickness as W5 (NW5)); 4) Control insole for W8 (flat EVA base with the same thickness as W8 (NW8)). Each of the four cases was completed with eyes open and eyes closed. The center-of-pressure (COP) total excursion and mean velocity and area of 95% confidence ellipse were derived as measures of standing balance.

Results

Participants with a pronated foot type (Mean FPI: 7.5) demonstrated greater total excursion (298.19±28.59mm versus 262.69±22.92mm) and total mean velocity (11.78±1.41mm.s-1 versus 10.41±1.13mm.s-1), and larger ellipse area (630.81±244.19mm2 versus 298.15±195.79 mm2), compared with participants with normal foot type (Mean FPI: 3.8) during normal standing, but this did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05) (Figure 1). There was a significant main effect for eyes open (p<0.05) with the total excursion (290.0 ± 14.7mm versus 321.9 ± 14.1mm) and mean velocity of COP in ML (8.9 ± 0.5mm.s-1 versus 10.2 ± 0.6mm.s-1) being significantly lower.
Figure 1

Percentage of mean differences in COP parameters between participants with a pronated foot type and those with normal foot type across different orthoses and eyes conditions (open and close)

There were no statistically significant effects from the four orthoses in the pronated nor the normal foot types (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in interaction of all conditions (foot posture × eye condition × orthoses) (p<0.05).

Conclusion

A trend towards less stable balance was observed in pronated foot type but this was not significant. Use of orthoses had no effect on balance parameters including negating the effects of eyes closed. Orthoses showed no negative effects on standing balance and therefore do not pose a threat to balance (e.g. if they are used for another purpose).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Musculoskeletal Research Centre, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
(2)
Centre for Health Sciences Research, University of Salford

References

  1. Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L: Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait &Posture. 2007, 26: 68-75. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.07.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Menz HB, Morris ME, Lord SR: Foot and ankle characteristics associated with impaired balance and functional ability in older people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005, 60: 1546-1552. 10.1093/gerona/60.12.1546.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Tsai L-C, BING Y, Mercer VS, Gross MT: Comparison of different structural foot types for measures of standing postural control. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006, 36: 942-953. 10.2519/jospt.2006.2336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Nigg BM, Nurse MA, Stefanyshyn DJ: Shoe inserts and orthotics for sport and physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999, 31: 421-428. 10.1097/00005768-199903000-00011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Tsung BY, Zhang M, Mak AF, Wong MW: Effectiveness of insoles on plantar pressure redistribution. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004, 41: 767-774. 10.1682/JRRD.2003.09.0139.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Hemmati 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