Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2010 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of the medial longitudinal arch: A comparison between the dynamic plantar pressure measurement system and radiographic analysis

Medial longitudinal arkın değerlendirilmesi: Dinamik plantar basınç ölçüm sistemi ile radyografik yöntemlerin karşılaştırılması

Pages
241–245
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Both static and dynamic methods can be utilized in the evaluation of the MLA.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot is a controversial issue in orthopedics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 95 subjects (72 females, 23 males; mean age 37.8 years; range 11 to 85 years) were retrospectively evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Both static and dynamic methods can be utilized in the evaluation of the MLA.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot is a controversial issue in orthopedics. Several methods have been developed to define and determine the MLA, but none of them are universally accepted. The purpose of this study was to compare some statically obtained radiographic angles with the dynamic plantar pressure distribution measurement system for the evaluation of the MLA in healthy individuals. Methods: A total of 95 subjects (72 females, 23 males; mean age 37.8 years; range 11 to 85 years) were retrospectively evaluated. All the subjects were referred to the pedobarography laboratory for varying causes, had foot radiographies, and were evaluated as having normal feet. On standard lateral weight-bearing radiographs of the foot, the lateral talocalcaneal angle, talo-first metatarsal angle, talohorizontal angle, and calcaneal pitch angle were measured. The plantar pressure distribution was measured by the EMED-SF system. To evaluate the MLA, the arch index method was used. The arch index was calculated by the ratio of the pressure area of the midfoot to the sum of the forefoot, midfoot, and the hindfoot areas. Correlations between the radiographic angles and the arch index were analyzed by the Pearson correlation test. Results: The mean values of the lateral talocalcaneal angle, talo-first metatarsal angle, talohorizontal angle, and calcaneal pitch angle were 43.2, 7.2, 29.5, and 41 degrees, respectively. The mean value of the arch index was 0.12 (range 0.04 to 0.17). There was no significant correlation between the arch index and gender (r=-0.10, p>0.05). The talo-first metatarsal (r=0.38) and talohorizontal (r=0.19) angles were found to be in significant correlation with the arch index (p<0.05), whereas the talocalcaneal (r=-0.16) and calcaneal pitch (r=-0.10) angles did not show correlation with the arch index (p>0.05). Conclusion: The arch index method is a simple and reproducible pedobarographic measurement for the evaluation of the MLA. However, the angles measured on statically obtained radiographs and showing correlations with the arch index may give similar results concerning the MLA. Both static and dynamic methods can be utilized in the evaluation of the MLA.

Özet

Amaç: Ayakta medial longitudinal arkın (MLA) değerlendirilmesi ortopedide tartışmalı konulardan biridir. Arkı değerlendirmek ve tanımlamak için pek çok ölçüm yöntemi geliştirilmişse de, yaygın olarak kabul görmüş tek bir yöntem yoktur. Bu çalışmada, sağlıklı bireylerde, MLA’nın değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan, statik olarak elde edilen çeşitli radyografik açılar ile dinamik plantar basınç ölçüm sistemi karşılaştırıldı. Çalışma planı: Bu çalışmada, pedobarografi laboratuvarına çeşitli nedenlerle başvurmuş ve ayak grafileri çekilmiş, yapılan değerlendirme sonucunda normal ayak yapısına sahip olduğu sonucuna varılan 95 kişi (72 kadın, 23 erkek; ort. yaş 37.8; dağılım 11-85) geriye dönük olarak değerlendirildi. Deneklerin basarak çekilmiş standart yan ayak grafilerinde lateral talokalkaneal açı, talo-birinci metatarsal açı, talohorizontal açı ve kalkaneal eğim açıları ölçüldü. Ayakların plantar basınç dağılım ölçümleri ise EMED-SF sistemi ile yapıldı. Medial longitudinal arkın değerlendirilmesinde ark indeksi yöntemi kullanıldı. Ark indeksi, orta ayağın basınç alanının ön, orta, arka ayağın basınç alanları toplamına bölünmesi ile elde edildi. Açısal değerler ile ark indeksi arasındaki ilişkiler Pearson korelasyon testi ile değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar: Lateral talokalkaneal, talo-birinci metatarsal, talohorizontal ve kalkaneal açıların ortalamaları sırasıyla 43.2, 7.2, 29.5 ve 41 derece olarak bulundu. Ark indeksinin ortalaması ise 0.12 bulundu (dağılım 0.04-0.17). Ark indeksi cinsiyet ile ilişkili bulunmadı (r=-0.10, p>0.05). Ark indeksi talo-birinci metatarsal açı (r=0.38) ve talohorizontal açı (r=0.19) ile anlamlı ilişki gösterirken (p 0.05). Çıkarımlar: Ark indeksi yöntemi, MLA’nın değerlendirilmesinde basit ve tekrarlanabilir bir pedobarografik yöntemdir. Bununla birlikte, statik radyografiler üzerinde ölçülen ve ark indeksi ile anlamlı ilişki gösteren açılar da MLA’nın değerlendirilmesinde benzer sonuçlar verebilir. Hem dinamik hem de statik yöntemler ayak MLA’sını değerlendirmede kullanılabilir

🔖

Cite This Article

YALÇIN, M. N., ESEN, E., KANATLI, U., YETKİN, H. (2010). Evaluation of the medial longitudinal arch: A comparison between the dynamic plantar pressure measurement system and radiographic analysis. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 3, 241–245. https://ajindex.com/articles/353817

References (18)

  1. Kanatlı U, Yetkin H, Cila E. Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop 2001;21:225-8
  2. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1987;69:426-8
  3. Viladot A. Surgical treatment of the child’s flatfoot. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;(283):34-8
  4. Volpon JB. Footprint analysis during the growth period. J Pediatr Orthop 1994;14:83-5
  5. Forriol F, Pascual J. Footprint analysis between three and seventeen years of age. Foot Ankle 1990;11:101-4
  6. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD. Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76:45-9
  7. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 1987;20:547-51
  8. Cobey JC, Sella E. Standardizing methods of measurement of foot shape by including the effects of subtalar rotation. Foot Ankle 1981;2:30-6
  9. Cavanagh PR, Morag E, Boulton AJ, Young MJ, Deffner KT, Pammer SE. The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. J Biomech 1997;30:243-50
  10. Simons GW. A standardized method for the radiographic evaluation of clubfeet. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978;(135): 107-18
  11. Vanderwilde R, Staheli LT, Chew DE, Malagon V. Measurements on radiographs of the foot in normal infants and children. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1988;70:407-15
  12. Gilmour JC, Burns Y. The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch in children. Foot Ankle Int 2001;22:493-8
  13. Rose GK. Flat feet in children. Br Med J 1990;301:1330-1
  14. Chen CH, Huang MH, Chen TW, Weng MC, Lee CL, Wang GJ. The correlation between selected measurements from footprint and radiograph of flatfoot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:235-40
  15. Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, Nigg BM. Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle 1992;13:22-6
  16. Igbigbi PS, Msamati BC. The footprint ratio as a predictor of pes planus: a study of indigenous Malawians. J Foot Ankle Surg 2002;41:394-7
  17. Echarri JJ, Forriol F. The development in footprint morphology in 1851 Congolese children from urban and rural areas, and the relationship between this and wearing shoes. J Pediatr Orthop B 2003;12:141-6
  18. El O, Akçalı O, Koşay C, Kaner B, Arslan Y, Sagol E, et al. Flexible flatfoot and related factors in primary school children: a report of a screening study. Rheumatol Int 2006; 26:1050-3.