Physical Therapy Korea (한국전문물리치료학회지)

Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy (한국전문물리치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Foot Type in Korean Young Adults Based on Normalized Arch Height

한국 젊은 성인의 정규화된 아치 높이에 따른 발 유형 분석

  • Jung, Do-young (Department of Physical Therapy, Kinesiopathologic Science Institute, Joongbu University)
  • 정도영 (중부대학교 물리치료학과, 운동병리과학연구소)
  • Received : 2020.04.16
  • Accepted : 2020.06.03
  • Published : 2020.08.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The classification of foot type can be commonly determined by the height of the media longitudinal arch. The normalized arch height (NAH) is defined as the ratio of navicular or instep heights to the foot length or instep length. Objects: This study investigated the relationships among foot characteristics, such as foot length (FL), instep length (IL), navicular height (NH), and instep height (IH), in Korean young adults. Also, the distribution of foot type based on calculated NAH was assessed. Methods: Three-dimensional foot scanning data of young adults aged 20 to 39 years (total: 1,978; 974 male, 1,004 female) were obtained from the Korea Technology Standards Institute, and used for analyses. NAH was calculated as the following: NH/FL, IH/FL, IH/IL, NH/IL. Spearman's rank order correlation was used to identify correlations among variables. The Mann-Whitney U-test and chi-square test were used to compare the sex differences in foot characteristics and distribution of foot type. Results: FL and IL showed a very high correlation (r = 0.94). The correlations between FL or IL and IH (r = 0.50-0.57) were greater than those between FL or IL and NH (r = 0.23-0.72). Males had significantly larger values than females (p < 0.001), and the frequency of pes planus was significantly higher in females than in males (χ2 = 50.09, p < 0.001). Based on the IH/IL index, the neutral foot, pes planus and pes cavus distributed by 16%, 78%, and 6% respectively. Conclusion: Our results on foot arch distribution could be used as basic data in clinical or footwear fields, and our data on differences in arch structure according to sex may facilitate understanding of why injury to the lower limbs differs between males and females.

Keywords

References

  1. Hillstrom HJ, Song J, Kraszewski AP, Hafer JF, Mootanah R, Dufour AB, et al. Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. Gait Posture 2013;37(3):445-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.09.007
  2. Zhao X, Gu Y, Yu J, Ma Y, Zhou Z. The influence of gender, age, and body mass index on arch height and arch stiffness. J Foot Ankle Surg 2020;59(2):298-302. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2019.08.022
  3. Butler RJ, Hillstrom H, Song J, Richards CJ, Davis IS. Arch height index measurement system: establishment of reliability and normative values. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2008;98(2):102-6. https://doi.org/10.7547/0980102
  4. Pohl MB, Farr L. A comparison of foot arch measurement reliability using both digital photography and calliper methods. J Foot Ankle Res 2010;3:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-3-14
  5. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD. Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76(1):45-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80041-7
  6. Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther 2000;80(9):864-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/80.9.864
  7. Xiong S, Goonetilleke RS, Witana CP, Weerasinghe TW, Au EY. Foot arch characterization: a review, a new metric, and a comparison. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2010;100(1):14-24. https://doi.org/10.7547/1000014
  8. Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH. Normal and abnormal function of the foot. Los Angeles:Clinical Biomechanics Corp.;1977;2.
  9. De Doncker E, Kowalski C. [The normal and pathological foot. Concepts of anatomy, physiology and pathology of foot deformities]. Acta Orthop Belg 1970;36(4):386-551. French.
  10. Sugathan HK, Sherlock DA. A modified Jones procedure for managing clawing of lesser toes in pes cavus: long-term follow-up in 8 patients. J Foot Ankle Surg 2009;48(6):637-41. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2009.07.009
  11. Ledoux WR, Shofer JB, Ahroni JH, Smith DG, Sangeorzan BJ, Boyko EJ. Biomechanical differences among pes cavus, neutrally aligned, and pes planus feet in subjects with diabetes. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24(11):845-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070302401107
  12. Levy JC, Mizel MS, Wilson LS, Fox W, McHale K, Taylor DC, et al. Incidence of foot and ankle injuries in West Point cadets with pes planus compared to the general cadet population. Foot Ankle Int 2006;27(12):1060-4. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602701211
  13. Kaufman KR, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA, Johnson CW, Cullison TR. The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. Am J Sports Med 1999;27(5):585-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465990270050701
  14. Chang CH, Chen YC, Yang WT, Ho PC, Hwang AW, Chen CH, et al. Flatfoot diagnosis by a unique bimodal distribution of footprint index in children. PLoS One 2014;9(12):e115808. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115808
  15. Coughlin MJ, Kaz A. Correlation of Harris mats, physical exam, pictures, and radiographic measurements in adult flatfoot deformity. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30(7):604-12. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0604
  16. Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams MT. Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2003;93(3):203-13. https://doi.org/10.7547/87507315-93-3-203
  17. Gilmour JC, Burns Y. The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch in children. Foot Ankle Int 2001;22(6):493-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070102200607
  18. Queen RM, Mall NA, Hardaker WM, Nunley JA 2nd. Describing the medial longitudinal arch using footprint indices and a clinical grading system. Foot Ankle Int 2007;28(4):456-62. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2007.0456
  19. Scharfbillig R, Evans AM, Copper AW, Williams M, Scutter S, Iasiello H, et al. Criterion validation of four criteria of the foot posture index. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2004;94(1):31-8. https://doi.org/10.7547/87507315-94-1-31
  20. Song J, Hillstrom HJ, Secord D, Levitt J. Foot type biomechanics. Comparison of planus and rectus foot types. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1996;86(1):16-23. https://doi.org/10.7547/87507315-86-1-16
  21. Weimar WH, Shroyer JF. Arch height index normative values of college-aged women using the arch height index measurement system. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2013;103(3):213-7. https://doi.org/10.7547/1030213
  22. Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB. A protocol for classifying normal- and flat-arched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Res 2009;2:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-2-22
  23. Hill M, Naemi R, Branthwaite H, Chockalingam N. The relationship between arch height and foot length: Implications for size grading. Appl Ergon 2017;59(Pt A):243-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.012
  24. Xiong S, Goonetilleke RS, Witana CP, Lee Au EY. Modelling foot height and foot shape-related dimensions. Ergonomics 2008;51(8):1272-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130801996147
  25. Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 2002;15(3):282-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(01)00151-5
  26. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW, Vicenzino B, Teyhen DS, Molloy JM, Christie DS, et al. Effect of using truncated versus total foot length to calculate the arch height ratio. Foot (Edinb) 2008;18(4):220-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2008.06.002
  27. Dunn J, Dunn C, Habbu R, Bohay D, Anderson J. Effect of pregnancy and obesity on arch of foot. Orthop Surg 2012;4(2):101-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7861.2012.00179.x
  28. Zhao X, Tsujimoto T, Kim B, Katayama Y, Tanaka K. Characteristics of foot morphology and their relationship to gender, age, body mass index and bilateral asymmetry in Japanese adults. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2017;30(3):527-35. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-150501
  29. Zifchock RA, Davis I, Hillstrom H, Song J. The effect of gender, age, and lateral dominance on arch height and arch stiffness. Foot Ankle Int 2006;27(5):367-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602700509
  30. SizeKorea. 5th size Korea. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards [Internet]. Eumseong: 2004 Nov [cited 2020 Mar 1]. Available from: https://sizekorea.kr/page/report/3.
  31. De Mits S, Coorevits P, De Clercq D, Elewaut D, Woodburn J, Roosen P. Reliability and validity of the Infoot 3D foot digitizer for normal healthy adults. Footwear Sci 2010;2(2):65-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424281003685694
  32. De Mits S, Coorevits P, De Clercq D, Elewaut D, Woodburn J, Roosen P. Reliability and validity of the INFOOT three-dimensional foot digitizer for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2011;101(3):198-207. https://doi.org/10.7547/1010198
  33. Nguyen AD, Shultz SJ. Identifying relationships among lower extremity alignment characteristics. J Athl Train 2009;44(5):511-8. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-44.5.511
  34. Medina McKeon JM, Hertel J. Sex differences and representative values for 6 lower extremity alignment measures. J Athl Train 2009;44(3):249-55. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-44.3.249
  35. Shultz SJ, Nguyen AD, Schmitz RJ. Differences in lower extremity anatomical and postural characteristics in males and females between maturation groups. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38(3):137-49. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2008.2645