The Comparison of Functional Foot Types Occurrence in Men and Women
Authors:
I. Vařeka 1,2; R. Vařeková 3
Authors‘ workplace:
Lázně Luhačovice, a. s.
vedoucí lékař prim. MUDr. J. Hnátek
1; Katedra fyzioterapie FTK UP, Olomouc
vedoucí katedry prof. MUDr. J. Opavský, CSc.
2; Katedra funkční antropologie a fyziologie FTK UP, Olomouc
vedoucí katedry prof. RNDr. J. Riegerová, CSc.
3
Published in:
Rehabil. fyz. Lék., 15, 2008, No. 2, pp. 57-62.
Category:
Original Papers
Overview
Clinical practice and research indicate that men and women differ in occurrence of pes cavus and flat foot. The objective of this research was to find out simmilar differences in Root’s functional foot types distribution in adult men and women.
The test group consisted of 141 women (17-85 y., x=58.8, SD=12) and 87 men (22-86 y., x=58.7, SD=11.91), mainly middle aged and older. The functional type and subtype according to Root was estiamted in all of them - rearfoot varus compensated (RFvarC), partially compensated (RFvarP) and uncompensated (RFvarN), forefoot varus varozní compensated (FFvarC), partially compensated (FFvarP) and uncompensated (FFvarN), forefoot valgus flexible (FFvalgF), semiflexible (FFvalgS) and rigid (FFvalgR) and neutral type (N).
The significance of their distribution in men and women was tested with Statistic 6.0 programme by menas of proportion test.
FFvalg and RFvar (36.9 %, resp. 32.6 %) were significantly more frequent than FFvar and N type (15.6 %, resp. 14.9 %) in women, RFvar (46 %) was significantly more frequent than N type, FFvar and FFvalg (19.5 %, 17. 2 %, resp. 17.2 ) in men. Significance of difference in subtypes frequency between men and women were not tested, FFvalgF and RFvarC were relatively more frequent in women (18.4 %, resp. 14.9 %), RFvarC was relatively more frequent in men (26.4%).
Key words:
rearfoot varus, forefoot varus, forefoot valgus
Sources
1. Bojsen-MŅller, F.: Calcaneocuboid joint and stability of the longitudinal arch of the foot at high and low gear push off. J. Anat., roč. 129, 1979, č. 1, s. 165-176.
2. Bolgla, L. A., Malone T. R.: Plantar fasciitis and the windlass mechanism: a biomechanical link to clinical practice. J. Athl. Train., roč. 39, 2004, č.1, pp. 77–82.
3. Buchanan, K. R., Davis, I.: The relationship between forefoot, midfoot and rearfoot static alignment in pain-free individuals. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther., roč. 35, 2005, č. 9, s. 559-566.
4. Cobb, S. C., Tiss, L. L.: The effect of forefoot varus on postural stability. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther., roč. 34, 2004, č. 2, s. 79-84.
5. ECHARRI, J. J., FORRIOL, F.: The development in footprint morphology in 1851 Congolese children from urban and rural areas, and the relationship between this and wearing shoes. J. Pediatr. Orthop. B., roč. 12, 2003, č.2, s. 141-146.
6. Fuller, E. A.: The windlass mechanism of the foot. A mechanical model to explain pathology. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc., roč. 90, 2000, č. 1, s. 35-46.
7. GARBALOSA, J. C., MCLURE, M. H., CATLIN, P. A., WOODEN, M.: The frontal plane relationship of the forefoot to the rearfoot in an asymptomatic population. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther., roč., 20, 1994, č. 4, s. 200-206.
8. GROSS, K. D., NIU, J., ZHANG, Y. Q., FELSON, D. T., MCLENNAN, C., HANNAN, M. T., HOLT, K. G., HUNTER, D. J.: Varus foot alignment and hip conditions in older adults. Arthritis Rheum., roč. 56, 2007, č. 9, s. 2993-2998.
9. Humble, N.: Managemet in ice skating. Podiatry Managemet, 2003, 49. Retrieved 8. 4. 2005 from the World Wide Web http://www.podiatrym.com.
10. Hunt, G. C.: Examination of lower extremitiy dysfunction. In J. A. Gould III (Ed.) Orthopaedic and sports physical therapy (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Moshby, 1990.
11. JANURA, M., ZAHÁLKA, F.: Kinematická analýza pohybu člověka. Olomouc, UP v Olomouci, 2004.
12. Keenan, A. M.: Understanding midtarsal joint function - fact and fallacy. In A. M. Keenan & H. B. Menz (Eds.), Conference Book of Proceedings for the 17th Australian Podiatry Conference. Melbourne, Australian Podiatry Council, 1996.
13. Kidd, R.: Forefoot varum - fact or fiction. Australas. J. Podiatr. Med., roč. 31, 1997, č. 3, s. 81-86.
14. Kirby, K. A.: Subtalar joint axis location and rotational equilibrium theory of foot function. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc., roč. 91, 2001, č. 9, s. 465-487.
15. Magee, D. J.: Orthopaedic Physical Assessment. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1992.
16. McPoil, T. G., Brocato, R. S.: The foot and ankle: biomechanical evaluation and treatment. In J. A. Gould III (Ed.), Orthopaedic and sports physical therapy (2nd ed.), s. 293-321,. St. Louis: Moshby, 1990.
17. McPoil, T. G., Hunt, G. C.: Evaluation and management of foot and ankle disorders: Present problems and future directions. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther., roč., 21, 1995, č. 6, s. 381-388.
18. McPoil, T. G., Knecht, H. G., Schuit, D.: A survey of foot types in normal females between the ages of 18 and 30 years. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther., roč. 9, 1988, č.12, s. 406-409.
19. Michaud, T. C.: Custom ortheses: The forefoot varus deformity: 9 or 90 percent prevalence? BioMechanics, 1997. Retrieved 6. 6. 2004 from the World Wide Web http://www.biomech.com/db_area/archives/1997/9705custom.bio.html.
20. Miller, M., McGuire, J.: Literature reveals no consensus on subtalar neutral. BioMechanics, 2000. Retrieved 7. 6. 2004 from the World Wide Web
21. PAYNE, C. B., DANNANBERG, H.: Sagittal plane facilitation of the foot. Australas. J. Podiatr. Med., roč. 31, 1997, č. 1, s. 7-11.
22. Powers, C. M., Maffucci, R., Hampton, S.: Rearfoot posture in subjects with patellofemoral pain. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. roč. 22, 1995, č. 4, s. 155-160.
23. Pratt, D. J., Sanner, W. H.: Paediatric foot orthoses. The Foot, roč. 6, 1996, č. 3, s. 99-11.
24. Přidalová, M., Riegerová, J.: Child’s foot morphology. Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc. Gymn., roč., 35, 2005, č. 2, s. 75-86.
25. Riegerová, J, Žeravová, M., Peštuková, M.: Analysis of morphology of foot in Moravian male and female students in the age infans 2 and juvenis. Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc. Gymn., roč. 35, 2005. č. 2, s. 69-74.
26. Scherer, P .R., Morris, J. L. The classification of human foot types, abnormal foot function and pathology. In R. L. Valmassy (Ed.), Clinical biomechanics of the lower extremities (pp. 59-84). St. Louis: Mosby, 1996.
27. Simon, J., Doederlein, L., McIntosh, A .S., Metaxiotis, D., Bock, H. G., Wolf, S. I.: The Heidelberg foot measurement method: Development, description and ssessment. Gait Posture, roč. 23, 2006, č. 4, s. 411-424.
28. Stebbins, J., Harrington, M., Thompson, N., Zavatsky, T., Theologis, T.: Repeatibility of model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children. Gait Posture, roč., 23, 2006, č. 4, s. 401-410.
29. Sutherland, Ch. C. (Jr.): Gait evaluation in clinical biomechanics. In R. L. Valmassy (Ed.), Clinical biomechanics of the lower extremities (pp. 59-84). St. Louis: Mosby, 1996.
30. Valmassy, R. L.: Pathomechanics of lower extremity function. In R. L. Valmassy (Ed.), Clinical biomechanics of the lower extremities (s. 59-84). St. Louis: Mosby, 1996.
31. Vařeka, I.: Pronace/everze v subtalárním kloubu vyvolaná flexí v kolením kloubu v uzavřeném kinematickém řetězci., r Rehabil. fyz. Lék.oč. 11, 2004, č. 4, s. 163-168.
32. VAŘEKA, I., Vařeková, R.: Klinická typologie nohy. Rehabil. fyz. Lék., roč. 10, 2003, č. 3, s. 94-102.
33. Vařeka, I., Vařeková, R.: Patokineziologie nohy a funkční ortézování. Rehabil. fyz. Lék., roč. 12, 2005, č. 4, s. 155-166.
Labels
Physiotherapist, university degree Rehabilitation Sports medicineArticle was published in
Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine
![Issue 2](https://www.prolekare.cz/media/cache/resolve/journal_issue/media/image_pdf/85af59992826756e6543886b0346ccd1.jpeg)
2008 Issue 2
Most read in this issue
- Natural Treatment Sources in the Czech Republic
- New Aspects in the Roswitha Brunkow Method by Following the Activity of Selected Muscles by EMG
- Myths about the Stabilization System
- Massage as a Remedy to Compensate Changes Related to Organism Aging