4.3 Article

Flatfoot Prevalence and Foot Dimensions of 5-to 13-Year-Old Children in Taiwan

Journal

FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 326-332

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0326

Keywords

Flatfoot; Obesity; Foot Dimension; Weightbearing

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The prevalence of flatfeet in normal and obese children has not been studied well in the past. The prevalence of flatfoot and foot dimensions of school children in Taiwan were investigated in this study. Materials and Methods: One thousand twenty-four school children (549 boys and 475 girls) aged 5 to 13 years participated in this study. Fifteen foot dimensions were measured using a 3D coordinate measuring probe, digital tape measure and Harris mat imprint. Two-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the flatfoot and obesity effects on foot dimensions as well as on the change in foot size between weigbtbearing and nonweightbearing conditions. Results: The prevalence of flatfoot for 5- to 13-year-old children was 28% with a decreasing trend with age. Boys had a significantly higher frequency for flatfoot than girls (chi-square = 26.3; p < 0.001). The prevalence of flatfoot was 35% in boys and 20% in girls. The percent of overweight and obese children was 20%. A significant difference in the prevalence of flatfoot occurred between normal-weight (27%), overweight (31%), and obese (56%) children (chi-square = 18.0; p < 0.001). The obesity effect was significant (p < 0.01) for most foot dimensions. However, the flatfoot effect was only significant (p < 0.05) on foot height for both genders. Conclusion: Obese children have a higher frequency of flatfoot, greater foot dimensions, and less change in foot width with weightbearing than normal weight children. Children with flatfeet have a lower foot height and greater foot length change than children with normal feet with weightbearing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available