We describe the characteristics of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the right foot in 19 healthy men while sitting/partial bodyweight, standing/full bodyweight, and during the stance phase of walking. Three measurements were selected as representative of the MLA, including: height of the arch, length of the arch, and supranavicular angle. Mean values were calculated in three dimensions for each measure in the sitting and standing conditions and for the minimum value of each measure in the walking condition. Patterns measured during walking had high association (r = 0.999) and could be related to phases of stance. In the stationary conditions, the MLA varied significantly (P <0.001). No significant relationship of arch height, arch length, or supranavicular angle was found between sitting and standing or between stationary and walking conditions. It was concluded that none of the static variables could be used to predict others and that static measures of the MLA do not predict the dynamic motion of the MLA. The MLA may not be a reasonable indicator of behavior or motion of the foot.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrucknerJ.: Variations in the human subtalar joint. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.,8:489–494, 1987.
2.
CavanaghP.R., and RodgersM.M.: Pressure distribution under the human foot. InPerrenS.M., and SchneiderE. (eds.), Biomechanics: Current Interdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht, Martinus Nijoff Publishers, 1985, pp. 85–89.
3.
CavanaghP.R., and RodgersM.M.: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J. Biomech.,20:527–551, 1987.
4.
ClarkeH.H.: An objective method of measuring the height of the longitudinal arch in foot examinations. Res. Quarterly,4:99–107, 1933.
5.
CobeyJ.C., and SellaE.: Standardizing methods of measurement of foot shape by including the effects of subtalar rotation. Foot Ankle,1:30–36, 1981.
6.
DahleL.K., MuellerM., DelittoA., and DiamondJ.E.: Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to low extremity injury. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Then, 14:70–74,1991.
7.
FrancoA.H.: Pes cavus and pes planus. Phys. Ther.,67:688–694, 1987.
8.
HawesM.R., NauchbauerW., SovakD., and NiggB.M.: Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle,13:22–26, 1992.
9.
HennigE.M., and CavanaghP.R.: Ultrasonic quantification of the arch of the weight bearing foot. InWinterD. A., and NormanR. (eds.), Biomechanics IX-B. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1985, pp. 211–216.
10.
HicksJ.H.: The mechanics of the foot II: the plantar aponeurosis and the arch. J. Anat.,88:25–31, 1954.
11.
IrwinL.W.: A study of the tendency of school children to develop flat-footedness. Res. Q.,8:46–53, 1937.
12.
KayanoJ., NorimatsuT., FujitaM., MatsusakaN., YangS., and SuzukiR.: Changes of the medial arch of the foot during walking. InJonssonB. (ed.), BiomechanicsChampaignX., IL, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1987, pp. 409–412.
13.
KerR.F., BennettM.B., BibbyS.R., KesterR.C., and AlexanderR.McN.: The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature,325:147–149, 1987.
14.
KernozekT.W., and RicardM.D.: Foot placement angle and arch type: effect on rearfoot motion. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.,71:988–991, 1990.
15.
KitaokaH.B., LundbergA., LuoZ.P., and AnK-N.: Kinematics of the normal arch of the foot and ankle under physiologic loading. Foot Ankle Int.,16:492–499, 1995.
16.
MaslenB., and AcklandT.: Radiographic study of skin displacement errors in the foot and ankle during standing. Clin. Biomech.,9:291–296, 1994.
17.
MessierS.P., and PittalaK.A.: Etiologic factors associated with selected running injuries. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc,20:501–555, 1988.
18.
MoseleyL, SmithR., HuntA., and GantR.: Three-dimensional kinematics of the rearfoot during the stance phase of walking in normal young male adult males. Clin. Biomech.,11:39–45, 1996.
19.
NachbauerW., and NiggB.M.: Effects of arch height of the foot on ground reaction forces in running. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc,24:1264–1269, 1992.
20.
NiggB.M., ColeG.K., and NachbauerW.: Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. J. Biomech.,26:909–916, 1993.
21.
NorkinC.C., and LevangieP.K.: Joint Structure and Function. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis, 1983, pp. 331–365.
22.
PalastangaN., FieldD., and SoamesR.: Anatomy and Human Movement: Structure and Function, 2nd Ed.Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994.
23.
RattanaprasertU., SmithR., SullivanM., and GilleardW.: Three-dimensional kinematics of the forefoot, rearfoot, and leg without the function of tibialis posterior in comparison with normals with stance phase of gait. Clin. Biomech. (in press).
24.
ShoresM.: Footprint analysis in gait documentation. Phys. Ther.,60:1163–1167, 1980.
25.
SimkinA., and LeitcherI.: Role of the calcaneal inclination in the energy storage capacity of the human foot: a biomechanical model. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput,28:149–152, 1990.
26.
SimkinA., LeitcherI., GiladiM., SteinM., and MilgromC: Combined effect of foot arch structure and orthotic device on stress fractures. Foot Ankle,10:25–29, 1989.
27.
WinerB.J.: Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York, McGraw Hill, 1962, pp. 298–374.
28.
WinsonI.G., LundbergA., and BylundC: The pattern of motion of the longitudinal arch of the foot. The Foot,4:151–154, 1994.
29.
YangS.M., KayamoJ., NorimatsuT., FujitaM., Mat-susakaN., SuzukiR., and OkumuraH.: Walking changes of the arches of the foot during walking. InWinterD.A., NormanR.W., and WellsR.P. (eds.), Biomechanics IX-A. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1985, pp. 417–422.
