Adölesan futbol ve hentbol oyuncularında ayak biyomekanik özelliklerinin sedanter bireylerle karşılaştırılması: retrospektif çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Ergenlik döneminde ayak yapısı, büyüme ile ilişkili değişiklikler ve fiziksel aktivite düzeylerindeki farklılıklara bağlı olarak değişiklik gösterebilir. Ancak düzenli spor yapmanın ayak biyomekaniği üzerindeki etkisine dair kanıtlar sınırlıdır. Bu çalışma, spor yapma alışkanlığı olan ve olmayan ergenlerin ayak biyomekanik özelliklerini retrospektif karşılaştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: 10–18 yaş arası 60 sağlıklı ergen, spor yapan grup (n=30) ve spor yapmayan grup (n=30) olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Ayak biyomekaniği, mürekkep taban izi analizi ile elde edilen Staheli İndeksi (Sİ), Ayak Postür İndeksi (APİ) ve halluks valgus (HV) açısı kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında yaş açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur (p=0,049); ancak yaş farkı dikkate alınarak yapılan düzeltme sonrasında temel bulgular değişmemiş ve grup farklılıkları hâlâ anlamlıdır. Spor yapan grup, her iki ayakta da ayak postür indeksi skorları açısından anlamlı şekilde daha düşük değerler göstermiştir (p=0,005 ve p=0,003) ve Staheli İndeksi değerleri daha düşük bulunmuştur (p=0,003 ve p=0,001). Yaşa göre yapılan düzeltme sonrasında Ayak postür indeksi’ndeki grup farkları anlamlılığını korumuştur (sağ: p=0,024; sol: p=0,019). Halluks valgus açılarında ise anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p > 0,05). Sonuçlar: Düzenli olarak spor yapan ergenlerde ayak postürü daha nötral olup, medial longitudinal ark daha iyi korunmaktadır. Bu bulgular, organize sporların ergenlik döneminde ayak gelişimi üzerinde potansiyel olarak yararlı bir rolü olabileceğini desteklemekte, gelecekte yapılacak araştırmalar için bir temel sunmakta ve nedenselliğin açıklığa kavuşturulması amacıyla iyi tasarlanmış uzunlamasına çalışmalara duyulan ihtiyacın önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Spor
• Postür
• Ayak deformiteleri
• Adölesan.

Comparative analysis of foot biomechanical characteristics in adolescent football and handball players and sedentary individuals: a retrospective study

Abstract

Purpose: Foot structure during adolescence may vary due to growth-related changes and differences in physical activity levels. However, evidence regarding the impact of regular sports participation on foot biomechanics remains limited. This study aimed to retrospectively compare foot biomechanical characteristics between adolescents with and without regular sports participation. Methods: Sixty healthy adolescents aged 10–18 years were classified into a sports-active group (n=30) and a non-sports group (n=30). Foot biomechanics were assessed using the Staheli Index (SI) obtained from ink footprint analysis, the Foot Posture Index (FPI), and the hallux valgus (HV) angle. Results: A statistically significant difference in age was observed between the groups (p=0.049); however, adjustment for age did not alter the main findings. The sports-active group demonstrated significantly lower Foot Posture Index scores for both feet (p=0.005 and p=0.003) and lower Staheli Index values (p=0.003 and p=0.001). Group differences in Foot Postur Index remained significant after age adjustment (right: p=0.024; left: p=0.019). No significant differences were detected in Hallux Valgus angles (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Adolescents who participate in sports regularly exhibit a more neutral foot posture and better preservation of the medial longitudinal arch. These findings support a potentially beneficial role of organized sports in adolescent foot development, provide a foundation for future research, and underscore the need for well-designed longitudinal studies to clarify causality.

Keywords

• Sports
• Posture
• Foot deformities
• Adolescent.

References

1. Galloway RT, Xu Y, Hewett TE, et al. Age-dependent patellofemoral pain: hip and knee risk landing profiles in prepubescent and postpubescent female athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46:2761-2771.
2. Day FR, Elks CE, Murray A, et al. Puberty timing associated with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and also diverse health outcomes in men and women: the UK Biobank study. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11208.
3. Hösl M, Böhm H, Oestreich C, et al. Self-perceived foot function and pain in children and adolescents with flexible flatfeet–relationship between dynamic pedobarography and the foot function index. Gait Posture. 2020;77:225-230.
4. Fritz B, Mauch M. Foot development in childhood and adolescence. Handbook of footwear design and manufacture: Elsevier; 2013.49-71.
5. Abolarin T, Aiyegbusi A, Tella A, et al. Predictive factors for flatfoot: The role of age and footwear in children in urban and rural communities in South West Nigeria. Foot. 2011;21:188-192.
6. Mitra S, Samanta M, Sarkar M, et al. Foot length as a marker of pubertal onset. Pediatr. 2011;48:549-551.
7. Busscher I, Kingma I, Wapstra FH, et al. The value of shoe size for prediction of the timing of the pubertal growth spurt. Scoliosis. 2011;6:1.
8. Smucny M, Parikh SN, Pandya NK. Consequences of single sport specialization in the pediatric and adolescent athlete. Orthop Clin North Am. 2015;46:249-258.

9. Organization WH. WHO Study Group on young people and health for all by the year 2000. Geneva: WHO Technical Report. 1984.
10. Chalatzoglidis G, Arabatzi F, Christou EA. Motor control and Achilles tendon adaptation in adolescence: effects of sport participation and maturity. J Hum Kinet. 2021;76:101-112.
11. Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clin biomech. 2006;21:89-98.
12. Staheli LT. Shoes for children: a review. Pediatrics. 1991;88:371-375.
13. Gijon‐Nogueron G, Marchena‐Rodriguez A, Montes‐Alguacil J, et al. Evaluation of the paediatric foot using footprints and foot posture index: A cross‐sectional study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56:201-206.
14. Kuo Y-L, Liu YS-F. The foot posture index between elite athletic and sedentary college students. Kinesiology. 2017;49:202-207.
15. Aydog ST, Demirel HA, Tetik O, et al. The sole arch indices of adolescent basketball players. Saudi Med J. 2004;25:1100-1102.
16. de Carvalho BKG, Penha PJ, Ramos NLJP, et al. Age, sex, body mass index, and laterality in the foot posture of adolescents: a cross sectional study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2020;43:744-752.
17. Abdalbary SA. Foot mobilization and exercise program combined with toe separator improves outcomes in women with moderate hallux valgus at 1-year follow-up: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2018;108:478-486.
18. Cevahir E. SPSS ile nicel veri analizi rehberi: Kibele; 2020.
19. Chen TL-W, Sze LK, Davis IS, et al. Effects of training in minimalist shoes on the intrinsic and extrinsic foot muscle volume. Clin Biomech. 2016;36:8-13.
20. Wei Z, Zeng Z, Liu M, et al. Effect of intrinsic foot muscles training on foot function and dynamic postural balance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS One. 2022;17:e0266525.
21. de Souza TMM, de Oliveira Coutinho VG, Tessutti VD, et al. Effects of intrinsic foot muscle strengthening on the medial longitudinal arch mobility and function: A systematic review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2023;36:89-99.
22. Kelly LA, Cresswell AG, Racinais S, et al. Intrinsic foot muscles have the capacity to control deformation of the longitudinal arch. J R Soc Interface. 2014;11:20131188.
23. Khalid Z, Rai MA, Mobeen B, et al. Pes Planus & Genu Valgum: Factors Associated. Prof Med J. 2015;22:1237-1244.
24. Mulligan EP, Cook PG. Effect of plantar intrinsic muscle training on medial longitudinal arch morphology and dynamic function. Man Ther. 2013;18:425-430.
25. Babović SS, Krstonošić BS, Novaković AD, et al. Biomechanical aspects of static foot load in physically active and inactive students. Med Pregl. 2021;74:285-290.
26. Pabón-Carrasco M, Castro-Méndez A, Vilar-Palomo S, et al. Randomized clinical trial: The effect of exercise of the intrinsic muscle on foot pronation. Int J Environ Res Public health. 2020;17:4882.
27. Eldemir K, Eldemir S, Benli A, et al. Comparison of foot biomechanics and functions in university students with and without regular exercise habits. J Inonu Univ Vocational School Health Serv. 2025;13:201-210.
28. Bukowska JM, Jekiełek M, Kruczkowski D, et al. Biomechanical aspects of the foot arch, body balance and body weight composition of boys training football. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:5017.
29. Spiteri M. Investigation of foot conditions in a national sport school: University of Malta; 2024.
30. Seyhan S, Açar G, Yaşasin Y, et al. Investigation of Foot Biomechanics in 5-15 Years Old Children Performing Gymnastics. Res Sport Educ and Sci. 2024;26:150-160.
31. Kozel M, Škrečková G, Potašová M, et al. Biomechanical and Posturographic Aspects of the Foot as a Basis of the Sport’s Postural Characteristics. Appl Sci. 2025;16:434-445.
32. Kulthanan T, Techakampuch S, Donphongam N. A study of footprints in athletes and non-athletic people. J Med Assoc Thailand. 2004;87:788-793.
33. Mei Q, Kim HK, Xiang L, et al. Toward improved understanding of foot shape, foot posture, and foot biomechanics during running: A narrative review. Front Physiol. 2022;13:1062598.
34. Kızılşahin Y. Effects of foot pressure and foot posture differences on physical fitness parameters in football players [thesis]. Famagusta: Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU); 2020.