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

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.

[1]  Benno M. Nigg,et al.  Footprint Parameters as a Measure of Arch Height , 1992, Foot & ankle.

[2]  D A Nawoczenski,et al.  Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  E. Morag,et al.  The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  L. Staheli,et al.  The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. , 1987, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  S. Prichasuk,et al.  The relationship of pes planus and calcaneal spur to plantar heel pain. , 1994, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  Y. Burns,et al.  The Measurement of the Medial Longitudinal Arch in Children , 2001, Foot & ankle international.

[7]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[8]  F. Forriol,et al.  The development in footprint morphology in 1851 Congolese children from urban and rural areas, and the relationship between this and wearing shoes , 2003, Journal of pediatric orthopedics. Part B.

[9]  B C Msamati,et al.  The footprint ratio as a predictor of pes planus: a study of indigenous Malawians. , 2002, The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons.

[10]  A. Viladot Surgical treatment of the child's flatfoot. , 1992, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  A. Oztürk,et al.  Foot mobility and plantar fascia elasticity in patients with plantar fasciitis. , 2010, Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica.

[12]  Omer Akcali,et al.  Flexible flatfoot and related factors in primary school children: a report of a screening study , 2006, Rheumatology International.

[13]  G. Simons A standardized method for the radiographic evaluation of clubfeet. , 1978, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  U. Kanatlı,et al.  The Relationship of the Heel Pad Compressibility and Plantar Pressure Distribution , 2001, Foot & ankle international.

[15]  U. Kanatlı,et al.  Footprint and Radiographic Analysis of the Feet , 2001, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[16]  J. B. Volpon,et al.  Footprint analysis during the growth period. , 1994, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[17]  J. Cobey,et al.  Standardizing Methods of Measurement of Foot Shape by Including the Effects of Subtalar Rotation , 1981, Foot & ankle.

[18]  U. Kanatlı,et al.  The Relationship between Accessory Navicular and Medial Longitudinal Arch: Evaluation with a Plantar Pressure Distribution Measurement System , 2003, Foot & ankle international.

[19]  P. Scranton,et al.  Flat feet in children. , 1983, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[20]  Chia-Ling Lee,et al.  The correlation between selected measurements from footprint and radiograph of flatfoot. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[21]  L. Staheli,et al.  Measurements on radiographs of the foot in normal infants and children. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  H. Sword The longitudinal archive , 2008 .

[23]  F. Forriol,et al.  Footprint Analysis Between Three and Seventeen Years of Age , 1990, Foot & ankle.