Factors affecting foot arch development in Northern Ethiopia

Abstract

Objectives: Bones of the foot form longitudinal and transverse arches which absorb and distribute downward forces from the body during standing and moving on different surfaces. The medial longitudinal arch is the longest, highest and most important in static position and moving. Studies classify the medial longitudinal arch as high, normal, and flat. This study was designed to determine the factors that affect the development of the medial longitudinal foot arch.

Methods: Cross-sectional study design was employed, 424 subjects were selected using quota sampling method. The footprint areas were measured using a planimeter. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regressions were used for data analysis and p value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: From the total subjects, 46.2%, 42.9%, and 10.9% were high, normal and flat arched, respectively. About 6.9% of shoe-wearers and 4% of the barefooted had flat arch. From the flat arched, 8.5% were males and 2.4% were females. Among the shoe-wearers, 10.2% used closed toe shoes, and 3.3% that wore sandals were flat-arched. From 29 flat-arched, 24 (11.2%) were urban residents.

Conclusion: Sex, type of shoes, wearing shoes and being barefooted residence were significant factors affecting the development of foot arch. Shoe age did not determine arch development.

Keywords

• barefooted
• foot arch
• planimeter
• shoe-wearers
• type of shoe

References

1. 1. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from foot print. J Biomech 1987;20:47–51.
2. 2. Chang YW, Hung W, Wu HW, Chiu YC, Hsu HC. Measurement of foot arch in standing, level of walking, vertical jump and Sprint start. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Science 2010;2: 31–8.
3. 3. Xiong S, Goonetilleke RS, Witana CP, Weerasinghe TW, Au EY. Foot arch characterization: a review, a new metric, and a comparison. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2010;100:14–24.
4. 4. Abdel-Fattah MM, Hassanin MM, Felembane FA, Nassaane MT. Flat foot among Saudi Arabian army recruits: prevalence and risk factors. East Mediterr Health J 2006;12:211–7.
5. 5. Daneshmadi H, Rahnema N, Mehdizadeh R. Relationship between obesity and flat foot in high school boys and girls. International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering 2009;3:43–9.
6. 6. Mortazavi SMJ, Espandar R, Baghdadi T. Flatfoot in children: how to approach? Iran J Pediatr 2007;17:163–70.
7. 7. Eluwa MA, Omini RB, Kpela T, Ekanem TB, Akpantah AO. The incidence of pes planus amongst Akwa Ibom State Students in the University of Calabar. The Internet Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008;3:1–5.
8. 8. Shiang TY, Lee SH, Lee SJ, Chu WC. Evaluating different footprint parameters as a predictor of arch height. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 1998;17:62–6.

9. 9. Lin CH, Lee HY, Chen JJ, Lee HM, Kuo MD. Development of a quantitative assessment system for correlation analysis of footprint parameters to postural control in children. Physiol Meas 2006;27: 119–30.
10. 10. Hernandez AJ, Kimura LK, Laraya MHF, Favaro E. Calculation of Staheli’s plantar arch index and prevalence of flat feet: a study with 100 children aged 5-9 years. Acta Ortop Bras 2007;15:68– 71.
11. 11. Chu WC, Lee SH, Chu W, Wang TJ, Lee MC. The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1995;42:1088–93.
12. 12. Sachithanandam V, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot: a survey of 1846 skeletally mature persons. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:254–7.
13. 13. Dunn JE, Link CL, Felson DT, Crincoli MG, Keysor JJ, McKinlay JB. Prevalence of foot and ankle conditions in a multiethnic community sample of older adults. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:491–8.
14. 14. Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M. Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics 2006;118:634–9.
15. 15. Roa UB, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot: a survey of 2300 children. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:525–7.