Structural foot characteristics in people with midfoot osteoarthritis: Cross‐Sectional findings from the clinical assessment study of the foot

Objective: This study compared radiographic measures of foot structure between people with and without symptomatic radiographic midfoot osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: This was a cross‐sectional study of adults aged 50 years and older registered with four UK general practices who reported foot pain in the past year. Bilateral weightbearing dorsoplantar and lateral radiographs were obtained. Symptomatic radiographic midfoot OA was defined as midfoot pain in the last 4 weeks, combined with radiographic OA in one or more midfoot joints (first cuneometatarsal, second cuneometatarsal, navicular‐first cuneiform, and talonavicular). Midfoot OA cases were matched 1:1 for sex and age to controls with a 5‐year age tolerance. Eleven radiographic measures were extracted and compared between the groups using independent sample t‐tests and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Results: We identified 63 midfoot OA cases (mean ± SD age was 66.8 ± 8.0 years, with 32 male and 31 female participants) and matched these to 63 controls (mean ± SD age was 65.9 ± 7.8 years). There were no differences in metatarsal lengths between the groups. However, those with midfoot OA had a higher calcaneal‐first metatarsal angle (d = 0.43, small effect size, P = 0.018) and lower calcaneal inclination angle (d = 0.46, small effect size, P = 0.011) compared with controls. Conclusions: People with midfoot OA have a flatter foot posture compared with controls. Although caution is required when inferring causation from cross‐sectional data, these findings are consistent with a pathomechanical pathway linking foot structure to the development of midfoot OA. Prospective studies are required to determine the temporal relationships between foot structure, function, and the development of this common and disabling condition

Plantar pressures in people with midfoot osteoarthritis: cross-sectional findings from the Clinical Assessment Study of the Foot

Background Midfoot osteoarthritis (OA) is a common condition, however its aetiology is not well understood. Understanding how plantar pressures differ between people with and without midfoot OA may provide insight into the aetiology and how best to manage this condition. Research question To compare plantar pressures between people with and without symptomatic radiographic midfoot OA. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of adults aged ≥50 years registered with four UK general practices who reported foot pain in the past year. Symptomatic radiographic midfoot OA was defined as midfoot pain in the last four weeks, combined with radiographic OA in one or more midfoot joints. Cases were matched 1:1 for sex and age (± 5 years) to asymptomatic controls. Peak plantar pressure and maximum force in 10 regions of the foot were determined using a pressure platform (RSscan International, Olen, Belgium) and compared between the groups using independent samples t-tests and effect sizes (Cohen’s d). Results We included 61 midfoot OA cases (mean age 67.0, SD 8.1, 31 males, 30 females) and matched these to 61 controls (mean age 66.0, SD 7.9). Midfoot OA cases displayed greater force (d=0.79, medium effect size, p=<0.001) and pressure at the midfoot (d=0.70, medium effect size, p=<0.001), greater force at the fourth metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint (d=0.28, small effect size, p=0.13), and fifth MTP joint (d=0.37, small effect size, p=0.10) and greater pressure at the fifth MTP joint (d=0.34, small effect size, p=0.13). They also displayed lower force (d=0.40, small effect size, p=0.02) and pressure at the hallux (d=0.50, medium effect size, p=<0.001) and lower force (d=0.54, medium effect size, p=<0.001) and pressure at the lesser toes (d=0.48, small effect size, p=<0.001) compared with controls. Significance Midfoot OA appears associated with lowering of the medial longitudinal arch, greater lateral push off and less propulsion at toe off. Longitudinal studies are needed to establish causal relationships

Are clinical measures of foot posture and mobility associated with foot kinematics when walking?

Background: There is uncertainty as to which foot posture measures are the most valid in terms of predicting kinematics of the foot. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations of clinical measures of static foot posture and mobility with foot kinematics during barefoot walking. Method: Foot posture and mobility were measured in 97 healthy adults (46 males, 51 females; mean age 24.4 ± 6.2 years). Foot posture was assessed using the 6-item Foot Posture Index (FPI), Arch Index (AI), Normalised Navicular Height (NNHt) and Normalised Dorsal Arch Height (DAH). Foot mobility was evaluated using the Foot Mobility Magnitude (FMM) measure. Following this, a five-segment foot model was used to measure tri-planar motion of the rearfoot, midfoot, medial forefoot, lateral forefoot and hallux. Peak and range of motion variables during load acceptance and midstance/propulsion phases of gait were extracted for all relative segment to segment motion calculations. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, adjusting for potential confounding variables. Results: The degree of variance in peak and range of motion kinematic variables that was independently explained by foot posture measures was as follows: FPI 5 to 22 %, NNHt 6 to 20 %, AI 7 to 13 %, DAH 6 to 8 %, and FMM 8 %. The FPI was retained as a significant predictor across the most number of kinematic variables. However, the amount of variance explained by the FPI for individual kinematic variables did not exceed other measures. Overall, static foot posture measures were more strongly associated with kinematic variables than foot mobility measures and explained more variation in peak variables compared to range of motion variables. Conclusions: Foot posture measures can explain only a small amount of variation in foot kinematics. Static foot posture measures, and in particular the FPI, were more strongly associated with foot kinematics compared with foot mobility measures. These findings suggest that foot kinematics cannot be accurately inferred from clinical observations of foot posture alone

Centre of pressure characteristics in normal, planus and cavus feet

Background The aim of this study was to compare centre of pressure (COP) characteristics between healthy adults with normal, planus or cavus feet who were allocated to groups based on reliable foot posture measurement techniques. Methods Ninety-two healthy adult participants (aged 18 to 45) were recruited and classified as either normal (n = 35), pes planus (n = 31) or pes cavus (n = 26) based on Foot Posture Index, Arch Index and normalised navicular height truncated measurements. Barefoot walking trials were conducted using an emed®-x 400 plantar pressure system (Novel GmbH, Munich, Germany). Average, maximum, minimum and range (difference between maximum and minimum) values were calculated for COP velocity and lateral-medial force index during loading response, midstance, terminal stance and pre-swing phases of stance. The COP excursion index was also calculated. One-way analyses of variance were used to compare the three foot posture groups. Results The cavus foot exhibited the slowest average and minimum COP velocity during terminal stance, but this pattern was reversed during pre-swing, when the cavus foot exhibited the fastest maximum COP velocity. The planus foot exhibited the smallest lateral medial force index range during terminal stance. There were no differences between the groups for COP excursion index. Conclusion These findings indicate that there are differences in COP characteristics between foot postures, which may represent different mechanisms for generating force to facilitate forward progression of the body during the propulsive phases of gait

Foot structure and lower limb function in individuals with midfoot osteoarthritis: a systematic review

ObjectiveTo determine how foot structure and lower limb function differ between individuals with and without midfoot osteoarthritis (OA).DesignElectronic databases were searched from inception until May 2020. To be eligible, studies needed to (1) include participants with radiographically confirmed midfoot OA, with or without midfoot symptoms, (2) include a control group of participants without radiographic midfoot OA or without midfoot symptoms, and (3) report outcomes of foot structure, alignment, range of motion or any measures of lower limb function during walking. Screening and data extraction were performed by two independent assessors, with disagreements resolved by a third independent assessor. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.ResultsA total of 1,550 records were screened by title and abstract and 11 met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative synthesis indicated that individuals who had midfoot OA had a more pronated foot posture, greater first ray mobility, less range of motion in the subtalar joint and first metatarsophalangeal joints, longer central metatarsals and increased peak plantar pressures, pressure time integrals and contact times in the heel and midfoot during walking. Meta-analysis could not be performed as the data were not sufficiently homogenous.ConclusionsThere are several differences in foot structure and lower limb function between individuals with and without midfoot OA. Future research with more consistent case definitions and detailed biomechanical models would further our understanding of potential mechanisms underlying the development of midfoot OA

Methodological and statistical approaches for the assessment of foot shape using three-dimensional foot scanning: a scoping review

Abstract Objective The objectives of this study were to: (i) review and provide a narrative synthesis of three-dimensional (3D) foot surface scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocols, and (ii) develop a set of recommendations for standardising the reporting of 3D foot scanning approaches. Methods A systematic search of the SCOPUS, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases were conducted to identify papers reporting 3D foot scanning protocols and analysis techniques. To be included, studies were required to be published in English, have more than ten participants, and involve the use of static 3D surface scans of the foot. Papers were excluded if they reported two-dimensional footprints only, 3D scans that did not include the medial arch, dynamic scans, or derived foot data from a full body scan. Results The search yielded 78 relevant studies from 17 different countries. The available evidence showed a large variation in scanning protocols. The subcategories displaying the most variation included scanner specifications (model, type, accuracy, resolution, capture duration), scanning conditions (markers, weightbearing, number of scans), foot measurements and definitions used, and statistical analysis approaches. A 16-item checklist was developed to improve the consistency of reporting of future 3D scanning studies. Conclusion 3D foot scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocol consistency and reporting has been lacking in the literature to date. Improved reporting of the included subcategories could assist in data pooling and facilitate collaboration between researchers. As a result, larger sample sizes and diversification of population groups could be obtained to vastly improve the quantification of foot shape and inform the development of orthotic and footwear interventions and products