Research Article

Comparison of the Plantar Pressure and Foot Function and Range of Motion in Distance Runners With the Normal, Pronated, and Supinated Feet During Static Standing

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the foot function, range of motion, plantar pressure, and plantar contact area in the distance runners with normal, pronated, highly-pronated, supinated, and highly-supinated foot posture groups during static standing.
Materials and Methods: In this comparative cross-sectional study, a total of 75 distance runners were divided into 5 groups using the foot posture index. The foot function and knee and foot range of motion were assessed using the Foot And Ankle Ability Measure questionnaire (FAAM) and the goniometer, respectively. The mean of the plantar pressure percentage and the mean of the contact area on the forefoot and rearfoot were investigated during static standing. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the outcomes between the groups.
Results: Among the groups, the normal foot group showed the highest scores in the activities of daily living subscale and sport subscale. Compared with the other groups, the highly-pronated foot group had a significantly greater range of motion in the ankle plantar flexion (P<0.002), and the normal foot group showed more range of motion in the first metatarsophalangeal extension (P<0.0001). In all groups, the mean plantar pressure percentage on the rearfoot was greater than the mean plantar pressure percentage on the forefoot. Of the groups, the highly-supinated foot group showed the highest plantar pressure percentage on the rearfoot (P<0.0001). However, the highly-pronated foot group showed the highest plantar pressure percentage and the largest contact area on the forefoot (P<0.0001) and the rearfoot (P>0.0001), respectively.
Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the foot posture is an important option that could affect function and range of motion of foot and ankle and distribution of the plantar pressure and plantar contact area.

Bahr R, Krosshaug T. Understanding injury mechanisms: a key component of preventing injuries in sport. British journal of sports medicine. 2005;39(6):324-9.

Carson DW, Myer GD, Hewett TE, Heidt Jr RS, Ford KR. Increased plantar force and impulse in American football players with high arch compared to normal arch. The Foot. 2012;22(4):310-4.

Cowan DN, Jones BH, Robinson JR. Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Archives of family medicine. 1993;2(7):773-7.

Tong JW, Kong PW. Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: systematic literature review with meta-analysis. journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy. 2013;43(10):700-14.

Neal BS, Griffiths IB, Dowling GJ, Murley GS, Munteanu SE, Smith MMF, et al. Foot posture as a risk factor for lower limb overuse injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of foot and ankle research. 2014;7(1):55.

Kaufman KR, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA, Johnson CW, Cullison TR. The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. The American journal of sports medicine. 1999;27(5):585-93.

Dahle LK, Mueller M, Delitto A, Diamond JE. Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 1991;14(2):70-4.

Williams Iii DS, McClay IS, Hamill J. Arch structure and injury patterns in runners. Clinical biomechanics. 2001;16(4):341-7.

Barnes A, Wheat J, Milner C. Association between foot type and tibial stress injuries: a systematic review. British journal of sports medicine. 2008;42(2):93-8.

Powell DW, Andrews S, Stickley C, Williams DB. High-compared to low-arched athletes exhibit smaller knee abduction moments in walking and running. Human movement science. 2016;50:47-53.

Powell DW, Hanson NJ, Long B, Williams III DB. Frontal plane landing mechanics in high-arched compared with low-arched female athletes. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2012;22(5):430-5.

Cobb SC, Tis LL, Johnson JT, Geil MD, McCarty FA. The effect of low-mobile foot posture on multi-segment medial foot model gait kinematics. Gait & posture. 2009;30(3):334-9.

Buldt AK, Levinger P, Murley GS, Menz HB, Nester CJ, Landorf KB. Foot posture is associated with kinematics of the foot during gait: A comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. Gait & posture. 2015;42(1):42-8.

Hunt AE, Smith RM. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clinical biomechanics. 2004;19(4):391-7.

Rao S, Song J, Kraszewski A, Backus S, Ellis SJ, Md JTD, et al. The effect of foot structure on 1st metatarsophalangeal joint flexibility and hallucal loading. Gait & posture. 2011;34(1):131-7.

Hamill J, Bates B, Knutzen K, Kirkpatrick G. Relationship between selected static an dynamic lower extremity measures. Clinical Biomechanics. 1989;4(4):217-25.

Buldt AK, Murley GS, Butterworth P, Levinger P, Menz HB, Landorf KB. The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: A systematic review. Gait & posture. 2013;38(3):363-72.

Jonely H, Brismée J-M, Sizer Jr PS, James CR. Relationships between clinical measures of static foot posture and plantar pressure during static standing and walking. Clinical Biomechanics. 2011;26(8):873-9.

Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, Ouvrier R. The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clinical Biomechanics. 2005;20(9):877-82.

Fernández-Seguín LM, Mancha JAD, Rodríguez RS, Martínez EE, Martín BG, Ortega JR. Comparison of plantar pressures and contact area between normal and cavus foot. Gait & posture. 2014;39(2):789-92.

Buldt AK, Forghany S, Landorf KB, Levinger P, Murley GS, Menz HB. Foot posture is associated with plantar pressure during gait: A comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. Gait & posture. 2018;62:235-40.

Buldt AK, Allan JJ, Landorf KB, Menz HB. The relationship between foot posture and plantar pressure during walking in adults: a systematic review. Gait & posture. 2018;62:56-67.

McLaughlin P, Vaughan B, Shanahan J, Martin J, Linger G. Inexperienced examiners and the foot posture index: a reliability study. Manual Therapy. 2016;26:238-40.

Levinger P, Murley GS, Barton CJ, Cotchett MP, McSweeney SR, Menz HB. A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal-and flat-arched feet using the Oxford Foot Model. Gait & posture. 2010;32(4):519-23.

Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. Journal of biomechanics. 1987;20(5):547-51.

Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the foot posture index. Journal of Foot and Ankle research. 2008;1(1):6.

Jarvis HL, Nester CJ, Bowden PD, Jones RK. Challenging the foundations of the clinical model of foot function: further evidence that the root model assessments fail to appropriately classify foot function. Journal of foot and ankle research. 2017;10(1):7.

McPoil T, Cornwall MW. Relationship between neutral subtalar joint position and pattern of rearfoot motion during walking. Foot & Ankle International. 1994;15(3):141-5.

Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clinical biomechanics. 2006;21(1):89-98.

Morrison SC, Ferrari J. Inter-rater reliability of the Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) in the assessment of the paediatric foot. Journal of foot and ankle research. 2009;2(1):26.

Aquino MR, Avelar BS, Silva PL, Ocarino JM, Resende RA. Reliability of Foot Posture Index individual and total scores for adults and older adults. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2018;36:92-5.

Unver B, Erdem EU, Akbas E. Effects of short-foot exercises on foot posture, pain, disability, and plantar pressure in Pes Planus. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2019;29(4):436-40.

Munteanu SE, Zammit GV, Menz HB. Factors associated with foot pain severity and foot-related disability in individuals with first metatarsophalangeal joint OA. Rheumatology. 2012;51(1):176-83.

Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Negahban H, Sohani S, Taghizadeh F, Feizi A, et al. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2010;18(6):755-9.

Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Swearingen JMV. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot & Ankle International. 2005;26(11):968-83.

Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry: FA Davis; 2016.

Birtane M, Tuna H. The evaluation of plantar pressure distribution in obese and non-obese adults. Clinical Biomechanics. 2004;19(10):1055-9.

Glasoe WM, Nuckley DJ, Ludewig PM. Hallux valgus and the first metatarsal arch segment: a theoretical biomechanical perspective. Physical therapy. 2010;90(1):110-20.

Tuna H, Yildiz M, Celtik C, Kokino S. Static and dynamic plantar pressure measurements in adolescents. Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica. 2004;38(3):200-5.

Han JT, Koo HM, Jung JM, Kim YJ, Lee JH. Differences in plantar foot pressure and COP between flat and normal feet during walking. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2011;23(4):683-5.

Files
IssueVol 15 No 1 (2021) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Published2020-12-23
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/10.32598/JMR.15.1.3
Keywords
Foot function index Foot posture Plantar pressure Plantar contact are Foot function Range of motion

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Keivanfar N, Shadmehr A, Otadi K, Mir SM, Salehi S. Comparison of the Plantar Pressure and Foot Function and Range of Motion in Distance Runners With the Normal, Pronated, and Supinated Feet During Static Standing. jmr. 2020;15(1):15-24.