Pressure platforms offer the potential to measure and record electronic footprints rapidly; however, the accuracy of geometric indexes derived from these prints has not been investigated. A comparison of conventional ink footprints with simultaneously acquired electronic prints revealed significant differences in several geometric indexes. The contact area was consistently underestimated by the electronic prints and resulted in a significant change in the arch index. The long plantar angle was poorly correlated between techniques. This study demonstrated that electronic footprints, derived from a pressure platform, are not representative of the equivalent ink footprints and, consequently, should not be interpreted with reference to literature on conventional footprints. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(4): 203-209, 2001
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.