Three-dimensional measurement of foot arch in preschool children

BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Hsun-Wen Chang³  Chien-Ju Lin⁵  Li-Chieh Kuo¹  Ming-June Tsai⁴  Hsiao-Feng Chieh²  Fong-Chin Su⁵ 

[1] Department of Occupational Therapy, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan, 701, Taiwan

[2] Department of Materials Science and Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan, 701, Taiwan

[3] Department of Physical Therapy, Fooyin University, 151 Jinxue Rd., Daliao Dist, Kaohsiung City, 83102, Taiwan

[4] Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan, 701, Taiwan

[5] Medical Device Innovation Center, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan, 701, Taiwan

关键词: Anthropometry;    Three-dimensional image;    Preschool children;    Flatfoot;    Foot;   

Others  :  797999
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-925X-11-76

 received in 2012-05-28, accepted in 2012-09-19,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The prevalence of flexible flatfoot is high among preschool-aged children, but the effects of treatment are inconclusive due to the unclear definitions of normal flatfoot. To date, a universally accepted evaluation method of the foot arch in children has not been completely established. Our aims of this study were to establish a new method to evaluate the foot arch from a three dimensional perspective and to investigate the flexibility of the foot arch among children aged from two to six.

Methods

A total of 44 children aged from two to six years of age were put into five age groups in this study. The navicular height was measured with one leg standing, and both feet were scanned separately in both sitting and one leg standing positions to compute the foot arch volume. The arch volume index, which represents the ratio of the difference in volume between sitting and one leg standing positions to the volume when sitting was calculated to demonstrate the flexibility of the foot arch. The differences of measured parameters between each aged group were analyzed by one-way ANOVA.

Results

The arch volumes when sitting and standing were highly correlated with the navicular height. The navicular height ranged from 15.75 to 27 mm, the arch volume when sitting ranged from 6,223 to 11,630 mm³, and the arch volume when standing from 3,111 to 7,848 mm³ from two to six years of age. The arch volume index showed a declining trend as age increased.

Conclusion

This study is the first to describe the foot arch with volume perspective in preschool-aged children. The foot arch volume was highly correlated with the navicular height. Research results show both navicular height index and arch volume index gradually increase with age from two to six. At the same time the arch also becomes rigid with age from two to six. These results could be applied for clinical evaluation of the foot arch and post-treatment evaluation.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Chang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M: Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics 2006, 118:634-639.
• [2]Lin CJ, Lai KA, Kuan TS, Chou YL: Correlating factors and clinical significance of flexible flatfoot in preschool children. J Pediatr Orthop 2001, 21:378-382.
• [3]Cappello TSK: Determining treatment of flatfeet in children. Curr Opin Pediatr 1998, 10:77-81.
• [4]D'Amico JC: Developmental flatfoot. Clin Podiatry 1984, 1:535-546.
• [5]Huang CK, Kitaoka HB, An KN, Chao EY: Biomechanical evaluation of longitudinal arch stability. Foot Ankle 1993, 14:353-357.
• [6]Queen RM, Mall NA, Hardaker WM, Nunley JA 2nd: Describing the medial longitudinal arch using footprint indices and a clinical grading system. Foot Ankle Int 2007, 28:456-462.
• [7]Menz HB, Munteanu SE: Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005, 35:479-486.
• [8]Cobey JC, Sella E: Standardizing methods of measurement of foot shape by including the effects of subtalar rotation. Foot Ankle 1981, 2:30-36.
• [9]Hawes M, Nachbauer W, Sovak D: Footprints as measure of arch height. Foot Ankle Clin 1992, 13:22-26.
• [10]Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Cila E: Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop 2001, 21:225-228.
• [11]Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD: Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995, 76:45-49.
• [12]Gilmour JC, Burns Y: The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch in children. Foot Ankle Int 2001, 22:493-498.
• [13]Williams DS, McClay IS: Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther 2000, 80:864-871.
• [14]Mall NA, Hardaker WM, Nunley JA, Queen RM: The reliability and reproducibility of foot type measurements using a mirrored foot photo box and digital photography compared to caliper measurements. J Biomech 2007, 40:1171-1176.
• [15]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, 87:235-240.
• [16]Chen MJ, Chen CP, Lew HL, Hsieh WC, Yang WP, Tang SF: Measurement of forefoot varus angle by laser technology in people with flexible flatfoot. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003, 82:842-846.
• [17]Liu X, Kim W, Schmidt R, Drerup B, Song J: Wound measurement by curvature maps: a feasibility study. Physiol Meas 2006, 27:1107-1123.
• [18]Windisch G, Odehnal B, Reimann R, Anderhuber F, Stachel H: Contact areas of the tibiotalar joint. J Orthop Res 2007, 25:1481-1487.
• [19]Huang CY, Luo LJ, Lee PY, Lai JY, Wang WT, Line SC: Efficient segmentation algorithm for 3D bone models construction on medical images. J Med Biol Eng 2011, 31:375-386.
• [20]Meneses J, Gharbi T, Cornu JY: Three-dimensional optical high-resolution profiler with a large observation field: foot arch behavior under low static charge studies. Appl Opt 2002, 41:5267-5274.
• [21]Witana CP, Xiong S, Zhao J, Goonetilleke RS: Foot measurements from three-dimensional scans: a comparison and evaluation of different methods. Int J Ind Ergonom 2006, 36:789-807.
• [22]Jonely H, Brismee JM, Sizer PS Jr, James CR: Relationships between clinical measures of static foot posture and plantar pressure during static standing and walking. Clin Biomech 2011, 26:873-879.
• [23]Wilken J, Rao S, Saltzman C, Yack HJ: The effect of arch height on kinematic coupling during walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2011, 26:318-323.
• [24]Yalcin N, Esen E, Kanatli U, Yetkin H: Evaluation of the medial longitudinal arch: a comparison between the dynamic plantar pressure measurement system and radiographic analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2010, 44:241-245.
• [25]Cashmere T, Smith R, Hunt A: Medial longitudinal arch of the foot: stationary versus walking measures. Foot Ankle Int 1999, 20:112-118.
• [26]Cavanagh PR, Morag E, Boulton AJM, Young MJ, Deffner KT, Pammer SE: The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. J Biomech 1997, 30:243-250.
• [27]Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. New York: Academic; 1988.
• [28]Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 1987, 20:547-551.
• [29]Jelen K, Tetkova Z, Halounova L, Pavelka K, Koudelka T, Ruzicka P: Shape characteristics of the foot arch: dynamics in the pregnancy period. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2005, 26:752-756.
• [30]Hennig EM, Staats A, Rosenbaum D: Plantar pressure distribution patterns of young school children in comparison to adults. Foot Ankle Int 1994, 15:35-40.
• [31]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, 69:426-428.
• [32]Volpon JB: Footprint analysis during the growth period. J Pediatr Orthop 1994, 14:83-85.
• [33]Gould N, Moreland M, Alvarez R, Trevino S, Fenwick J: Development of the child's arch. Foot Ankle 1989, 9:241-245.
• [34]Leung AK, Cheng JC, Mak AF: A cross-sectional study on the development of foot arch function of 2715 Chinese children. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005, 29:241-253.
• [35]Staheli LT: Fundamentals of pediatric orthopedics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
• [36]Onodera AN, Sacco IC, Morioka EH, Souza PS, de Sa MR, Amadio AC: What is the best method for child longitudinal plantar arch assessment and when does arch maturation occur? Foot (Edinb) 2008, 18:142-149.
• [37]Basmajian JV, Stecko G: The role of muscles in arch support of the foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1963, 45:1184-1190.
• [38]Jack EA: Navicular-cuneiform fusion in the treatment of the flatfoot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1953, 35:75-82.
• [39]Brody DM: Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injuried runner. Orthop Clin North Am 1982, 13:541-558.
• [40]Picciano AM, Rowlands MS, Worrell T: Reliability of open and closed kinetic chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. J Orthop Soprts Phys Ther 1993, 18:553-558.