Functional, impulse-based quantification of plantar pressure patterns in typical adult gait

Vette, Albert H.; Funabashi, Martha; Lewicke, Justin; Watkins, Beth; Prowse, Matthew; Harding, Graeme T.; Silveira, Anelise; Saraswat, Manu; Dulai, Sukhdeep

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.09.029

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the manufacturer this shoe has no pronation or supination support. For each participant only one foot was determined for data analyses (Vette et al, 2019; Gray et al, 2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plantar pressure changes in hindfoot relief devices of different designs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is frequently observed that overloading the foot can impair bone and soft tissue healing and can lead to harmful sequelae (i.e. ulcers, stress reactions) in context of pre-existing tissue disabilities. In terms of offloading, hindfoot relief devices are commonly applied as a non-operative treatment as well as after various surgical procedures for hindfoot disorders. Despite their common use, there is a paucity of data comparing different orthotic devices with respect to changes in plantar pressure distributions. The aim of this study was to investigate plantar loadings in hindfoot relief devices of different designs. Methods Twenty-five healthy participants (13 women, 12 men; (mean ± SD) age 37 ± 14 years; BMI 23 ± 4 kg/m 2 ) were recruited. Plantar pressure distributions were collected using i.) a neutral shoe, ii.) a hindfoot relief shoe (HRS) and iii.) a hindfoot relief orthosis (HRO). Peak pressure values were measured via dynamic pedobarography during walking and were analysed from four different plantar regions: the hindfoot, midfoot, metatarsal I-V and forefoot. As a reference standard, the normal walk using neutral shoes served as the condition for full weight-bearing. Results Concerning the hindfoot, using the HRS as well as the HRO resulted in significant decreases in plantar pressures compared to baseline values that were obtained with the neutral shoe (− 52% for the HRS and − 52% for the HRO, p < 0.001). Significant increases in peak pressures were found in the midfoot region for both devices (HRS: 32%, p = 0.002; HRO: 47%, p < 0.001). For the metatarsal region, peak pressures were found to decrease significantly (HRS: − 52%, p < 0.001; HRO: -17%, p = 0.034). With respect to the forefoot, a significant reduction in peak pressures using the HRS (− 41%, p < 0.001) was detected, whereas the HRO did not lead to significant changes (− 4%, p = 0.691). Conclusions Both the HRO and HRS significantly reduced plantar hindfoot pressure, corresponding to a relative decrease of nearly 50% of the baseline. Nevertheless, the adjacent midfoot zone displayed a significant increase in plantar pressure values for both devices. Supported by these findings, physicians should cautiously consider a substantial increase in midfoot loading, especially in patients affected by additional midfoot injuries or accompanying impairments of tissue healing. Level of evidence IV, Case series.

show abstract

“…According to the manufacturer this shoe has no pronation or supination support. For each participant only one foot was determined for data analyses (Vette et al, 2019; Gray et al, 2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these studies further functional kinetic parameters (i.e. normal impulse‐based measures (Vette et al, 2019)), that may provide differential information on loading should be implemented too.…”

Section: Study Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%