4.2 Article

Centre of pressure characteristics in normal, planus and cavus feet

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOT AND ANKLE RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-018-0245-6

Keywords

Foot; Gait; Biomechanics; Foot posture; Centre of pressure

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to compare centre of pressure (COP) characteristics between healthy adults with normal, planus or cavus feet who were allocated to groups based on reliable foot posture measurement techniques. Methods: Ninety-two healthy adult participants (aged 18 to 45) were recruited and classified as either normal (n = 35), pes planus (n = 31) or pes cavus (n = 26) based on Foot Posture Index, Arch Index and normalised navicular height truncated measurements. Barefoot walking trials were conducted using an emed (R)-x 400 plantar pressure system (Novel GmbH, Munich, Germany). Average, maximum, minimum and range (difference between maximum and minimum) values were calculated for COP velocity and lateral-medial force index during loading response, midstance, terminal stance and pre-swing phases of stance. The COP excursion index was also calculated. One-way analyses of variance were used to compare the three foot posture groups. Results: The cavus foot exhibited the slowest average and minimum COP velocity during terminal stance, but this pattern was reversed during pre-swing, when the cavus foot exhibited the fastest maximum COP velocity. The planus foot exhibited the smallest lateral medial force index range during terminal stance. There were no differences between the groups for COP excursion index. Conclusion: These findings indicate that there are differences in COP characteristics between foot postures, which may represent different mechanisms for generating force to facilitate forward progression of the body during the propulsive phases of gait.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available