Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Background
The Foot Posture Index (FPI) provides an easily applicable, validated method for quantifying static foot posture. However there is limited evidence relating to the ability of the FPI to predict dynamic foot function. This study aimed to assess the relationship between dynamic rearfoot motion and FPI scores in pronated and normal foot types.
Methods
40 subjects were recruited with equal numbers of pronated and normal foot types as classified by FPI score. Three dimensional rearfoot motion was collected for each of the participants. Dynamic maximum rearfoot eversion was correlated with the total FPI score across all participants and within the normal and pronated foot types. Linear correlations were performed between components of the total FPI scores measuring frontal plane rearfoot position and maximum rearfoot eversion. The capacity of the total FPI score to predict maximum frontal plane motion of the rearfoot was investigated using linear regression analysis.
Results
Correlation between the total FPI score and maximum rearfoot eversion was strongly positive (r=0.92, p<0.05). Correlation performed on data subsets demonstrated the pronated foot type (FPI =+6 to +9) and maximum rearfoot eversion angle was more strongly positively correlated (r=0.81, p<0.05) than the normal foot type (FPI=0 to +5) and maximum rearfoot eversion (r=0.76, p<0.05). Correlations between frontal plane rearfoot FPI score and frontal plane motion during gait were strongly positive, (r=0.79 p<0.05 pronated group, r= 0.71 p<0.05 normal group), however were less strong than the total FPI score and rearfoot motion. Linear regression analysis demonstrated a significant and strong relationship between the total FPI score and maximum rearfoot eversion (r2=0.85, p<0.001).
Conclusions
The results of this study suggest the FPI has strong predictive ability for dynamic rearfoot function. This will assist in clinical screening and research by allowing easy classification by functional foot type. Positive correlations between frontal plane rearfoot measurements and maximum rearfoot eversion suggest the FPI may identify dominant planar components of dynamic rearfoot motion and warrants further investigation.
Re: Foot Posture Index and Dynamic Rearfoot Motion
Quote:
Conclusions
The results of this study suggest the FPI has strong predictive ability for dynamic rearfoot function. This will assist in clinical screening and research by allowing easy classification by functional foot type. Positive correlations between frontal plane rearfoot measurements and maximum rearfoot eversion suggest the FPI may identify dominant planar components of dynamic rearfoot motion and warrants further investigation.
The question is whether or not rearfoot eversion is relevent to rearfoot dynamic "function". Rearfoot dynamic function or the heel bisection position, in this study may just be an indicator of skin movement over the posterior heel. What protocol was used to bisect the heel and did they think about skin movement?
Re: Foot Posture Index and Dynamic Rearfoot Motion
And indeed what is heel eversion predictive of? Had this conversation with a few colleagues recently. What does the fpi tell you which will change treatment?
Re: Foot Posture Index and Dynamic Rearfoot Motion
Static Foot Pressure Associated With Dynamic Plantar Pressure Parameters.
Teyhen DS, Stoltenberg BE, Eckard TG, Doyle PM, Boland DM, Feldtmann JJ, McPoil TG, Christie Iii DS, Molloy JM, Goffar SL. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Oct 22. [Epub ahead of print]
Quote:
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
OBJECTIVE: To explore potential associations between foot posture index (FPI-6) composite scores and dynamic plantar pressure measurements and to describe each of the 6 subscales and the FPI-6 composite scores across our sample.
BACKGROUND: The FPI-6 is a static foot posture assessment comprised of 6 observations. Extreme scores have been associated with increased injury risk. However, limited knowledge exists describing the relationship between FPI-6 scores and plantar pressure distributions during gait.
METHODS: Participants (n = 1,000, 566 males, 434 females) were predominantly active adults (mean ± SD age, 30.6 ± 8.0 years, body mass index 26.2 ± 3.7 kg/m2) who ran 3.1 ± 1.4 days/week. Static and dynamic foot characteristics were compared using the FPI-6 and a capacitance-based pressure platform. Correlation and hierarchical stepwise regression analyses were performed to determine the most parsimonious set of dynamic pressure data associated with FPI-6 scores.
RESULTS: The mean ± SD FPI-6 score was 3.4 ± 2.9 (range: -6.0 to 11.0). Only 31 participants received a score of -2 (supinated foot) on any FPI-6 subscale; classification of a pronated foot was 2.4 times more likely than a supinated foot. A 5-variable model (R = 0.57, R2 = 0.32) was developed to describe the association between dynamic plantar pressures and FPI-6 scores.
CONCLUSIONS: The multivariate model associated with FPI-6 scores comprised clinically plausible variables and informs the association between static and dynamic foot postures. Different cut-off values may be required when using the FPI-6 to screen for individuals with supinated feet given the limited number of high arched participants identified by FPI-6 classifications.
Foot Posture Index and Dynamic Rearfoot Motion
Linear Mode
