The Effect of Gender, Age, and Lateral Dominance on Arch Height and Arch Stiffness

Background: Arch structure is known to vary widely. However, it may be linked to intrinsic factors such as gender, age, and lateral dominance. Understanding the association between these factors and arch structure may be useful in understanding injury biases that exist between individuals with different foot types. Methods: The foot structure of 145 subjects, 68 men and 77 women (18 to 65 years) was examined in this study. The arch height index, a measure of dorsal height normalized to foot length, and arch stiffness of both feet were measured in each subject. Comparisons of both arch height and arch stiffness were made between genders and between the dominant and nondominant feet. In addition, the relationship between both arch height and stiffness and age was examined. Results: There was no difference between the arch height index of men and women; however, the arches in women were significantly less stiff (p = 0.00). There were no statistically significant relationships between increasing age and either arch height index or stiffness. The within-subject comparisons showed that the dominant foot had a significantly higher arch height index than the nondominant foot (p = 0.00). However, arch stiffness was not different between sides. There was a significant, but weak, relationship between arch height index and arch stiffness (p = 0.00, R 2 = 0.09) with a higher arch height index corresponding to a stiffer arch. Conclusion: Understanding differences in arch structure may lend insight into the predilection for injury between genders, with increasing age, and between sides of a given subject.

[1]  V. T. Inman,et al.  PHASIC ACTIVITY OF INTRINSIC MUSCLES OF THE FOOT. , 1964, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  C. Ruff,et al.  Bilateral asymmetry in cortical bone of the humerus and tibia-sex and age factors. , 1981, Human biology.

[3]  Mohsen Razeghi,et al.  Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[4]  D. Williams,et al.  Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. , 2000, Physical therapy.

[5]  K. A. Johnson,et al.  Acquired adult flat foot secondary to posterior tibial-tendon pathology. , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. , 2001, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[7]  W E Garrett,et al.  A comparison of knee joint motion patterns between men and women in selected athletic tasks. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[8]  B. Nigg,et al.  Transfer of movement between calcaneus and tibia in vitro. , 1994, Clinical biomechanics.

[9]  K. Kaufman,et al.  The Effect of Foot Structure and Range of Motion on Musculoskeletal Overuse Injuries , 1999, The American journal of sports medicine.

[10]  R. Ferber,et al.  Gender differences in lower extremity mechanics during running. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[11]  A H Franco,et al.  Pes cavus and pes planus. Analyses and treatment. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[12]  A. J. van den Bogert,et al.  Movement Coupling at the Ankle During the Stance Phase of Running , 2000, Foot & ankle international.

[13]  L. J. Chapman,et al.  The measurement of foot preference , 1987, Neuropsychologia.

[14]  D. Winter,et al.  Gait in the elderly , 1997 .

[15]  F. Pernus,et al.  Determination of the femoral and pelvic geometrical parameters that are important for the hip joint contact stress: Differences between female and male , 2006, Pflügers Archiv.

[16]  L. White,et al.  Manual asymmetry and handedness. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  U. Tan,et al.  Facial asymmetry in right- and left-handed men and women. , 1997, The International journal of neuroscience.

[18]  J. Hamill,et al.  Arch structure and injury patterns in runners. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[19]  M. G. Horton,et al.  Quadriceps femoris muscle angle: normal values and relationships with gender and selected skeletal measures. , 1989, Physical therapy.

[20]  S M Lephart,et al.  Knee Joint Laxity and Neuromuscular Characteristics of Male and Female Soccer and Basketball Players , 1999, The American journal of sports medicine.

[21]  L. Osternig,et al.  Injuries to runners , 1978, The Journal of sports medicine.

[22]  F. Prince,et al.  Symmetry and limb dominance in able-bodied gait: a review. , 2000, Gait & posture.

[23]  H. Latimer,et al.  Bilateral asymmetry in weight and in length of human bones , 1965, The Anatomical record.

[24]  R. Wilkerson,et al.  Differences in men's and women's mean ankle ligamentous laxity. , 2000, The Iowa orthopaedic journal.

[25]  Kevin R Ford,et al.  Valgus knee motion during landing in high school female and male basketball players. , 2003, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[26]  W. T. Dempster,et al.  Properties of body segments based on size and weight , 1967 .