Normal pressure values and repeatability of the Emed® ST2 system.

OBJECTIVES This study was designed to assess the repeatability of the Emed® ST2 system and identify the range of pressure values observed in the normal foot. METHODS Measurements were taken from twenty-three healthy subjects, 14 females and 9 males, on two occasions 7 days apart. Begin of contact (BC), end of contact (EC), contact time (CT), peak pressure (PP), instant of peak pressure (IPP), contact area (CA) and pressure-time integral (PTI) were recorded. RESULTS The coefficient of repeatability (CR) was less than 16.0% for all 63 parameters considered. In 87.3% of the parameters investigated (55 of 63) the CR (expressed as a percentage of the mean) was less than 10%. The highest areas of PP were found under the great toe and second metatarsal heads, with mean (S.D.) equal to 435 kPa (202) and 407 kPa (146), respectively, followed by the third metatarsal head 345 kPa (96) and the hindfoot 332 kPa (93). The CT (% ROP (range of pressure)) was in the range 74-85% under the metatarsal heads, and 71% under the great toe. CA was highest under the heel at 33.8 cm(2). CONCLUSION Emed® ST2 system was found to be repeatable. The presented range of parameters compared very well to the results presented in the literature for the Emed® ST4 system.

[1]  L. Klenerman,et al.  A Comparison of Two Studies of the Pressure Distribution under the Feet of Normal Subjects Using Different Equipment , 1993, Foot & ankle.

[2]  A. Bryant,et al.  Normal values of plantar pressure measurements determined using the EMED-SF system. , 2000, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[3]  A. Bryant,et al.  Comparison of the Reliability of Plantar Pressure Measurements Using the Two-step and Midgait Methods of Data Collection , 1999, Foot & ankle international.

[4]  A. Hayes,et al.  The average pressure distribution of the diabetic foot: can it be used as a clinical diagnostic aid? , 1997, Clinical biomechanics.

[5]  M. J. Potter,et al.  In-shoe step-to-step pressure variations , 1994 .

[6]  P. Siemonsma,et al.  Reproducibility of Plantar Pressure Measurements in Patients with Chronic Arthritis: A Comparison of One-Step, Two-Step, and Three-Step Protocols and an Estimate of the Number of Measurements Required , 2004, Foot & ankle international.

[7]  M. Cornwall,et al.  Comparison of three methods for obtaining plantar pressures in nonpathologic subjects. , 1994, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[8]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[9]  T. Mittlmeier,et al.  Modern gait analysis: a tool to improve shoes, insoles and the understanding of foot function. , 1996, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[10]  S. Urry,et al.  A comparison of gait initiation and termination methods for obtaining plantar foot pressures. , 1999, Gait & posture.

[11]  R J Abboud,et al.  Normal pressure values and repeatability of the Emed ST4 system. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[12]  M. Orlin,et al.  Comparison of the two-step and midgait methods of plantar pressure measurement in children. , 2008, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[13]  M. Cornwall,et al.  Variability of plantar pressure data. A comparison of the two-step and midgait methods. , 1999, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[14]  Dieter Rosenbaum,et al.  Between-day reliability of repeated plantar pressure distribution measurements in a normal population. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[15]  [Asymmetries in dynamic plantar pressure distribution measurement in able-bodied gait: application to the study of the gait asymmetries in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy]. , 2002, Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique : revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique.