Pes planuslu bireylerde farklı ark yüksekliklerinin alt ekstremite postüral dizilimi üzerine etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Değişik yüksekliklerdeki standart medial ark takviyelerinin statik ayakta durma postüründeki alt ekstremite dizilimi üzerine anlık etkilerini değerlendirmek ve birbirlerinden farkını saptamaktır.

Yöntem: Klinik ve radyolojik bilateral pes planus tanısı konulan 20 (9K, 11E) yetişkin çalışmaya dahil edildi. PostureScreen Mobile (PSM) uygulaması kullanılarak medial ark takviyesi olmadan ve 1, 1,5 ve 2 cm ark takviyesi ile aynı mesafe ve yükseklikten anterior, posterior ve lateralden olmak üzere 4 yönlü fotoğrafları çekildi. İşaretlenen anatomik noktalar ile postüral sapmalar hesaplandı. Çalışma genelinde istatistiksel anlamlılık sınırı %5 (p<0,05) olarak belirlendi ve analizler SPSS 22.0 yazılımı kullanarak gerçekleştirildi. Demografik veriler için tanımlayıcı istatistik ve değişken farklarının saptanabilmesi için One Way Repeated Measures ANOVA kullanıldı.

Bulgular: Farklı ark takviye yüksekliklerinin kalça ve lumbar bölgede istatistiksel olarak birbirleri arasında veya takviyesiz postüre karşı anlamlı bir fark yaratmadığı (p>0,05), 1cm’lik takviyenin ise, ark takviyesiz postüre göre, statik diz fleksiyonunu anlamlı oranda azalttığı görülmüştür (p<0,05). Diğer yüksekliklerin diz eklemi üzerine etkisi istatistiksel olarak tespit edilememiştir (p>0,05).

Sonuç: Tabanlık kullanımının statik postür üzerindeki anlık etkisini incelediğimizde diz ekleminde var olan postüral bozukluğu ortadan kaldırmaya yardım ettiği görülmektedir.

Keywords

• Ark desteği
• Alt ekstremite
• Medial longitudinal ark
• Pes planus

Effect of different arch heights on the lower extremity postural alignment in individuals with pes planus

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the immediate effects of standard medial arch reinforcements at different heights on the lower limb alignment in the static posture and to determine the difference from each other.

Methods: Twenty (9F, 11M) adults diagnosed with clinical and radiological bilateral pes planus were included in the study. Four- way photographs were taken without any medial arch support and with 1, 1.5 and 2 cm arch supports from the same distance and height from anterior, posterior and lateral by using the PostureScreen Mobile (PSM) application. Postural deviations were calculated with marked anatomic points. The statistical significance limit was determined as 5% (p <0.05) in this study and the analyzes were performed using SPSS 22.0 software. One Way Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to determine descriptive statistics and variable differences for demographic data.

Results: Arch supports shown no differences in the hip and lumbar region between different heights and without support (p>0,05). Arch support with 1cm was found to significantly reduce static knee flexion compared to the without any support (p<0,05). The effect of other heights on knee joint could not be determined statistically (p>0,05).

Conclusion: When we examine the effect of the use of arch supports on the static posture, it has seen that it helps to eliminate the postural disorder present in the knee joint.

Keywords

• Arch Support
• Lower Extremity
• Medial Longitudinal Arch
• Pes Planus

References

1. 1. Roper BA. Flat Foot. Br J Hodp Med. 1979; 22(4): 355-357.
2. 2. Lee MS, Vanore JV, Thomas JL, Catanzariti AR, Kogler G, Kravitz SR, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adult flatfoot. J Foot Ankle Surg 2005;44:78-113.
3. 3. Stephen JP, Sheldon SL. Current Concept Review: Acquired Adult Flatfoot Deformity, Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:66–75.
4. 4. Carroll, NC: The pediatric foot. Principles of orthopedic practice.1997: 820 – 823.
5. 5. Hunt AE, Smith RM. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech. 2004;19:391–397.doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.12.010.
6. 6. 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.
7. 7. Burns J, Keenan A-M, Redmond A. Foot Type and overuse onjury in triathletes. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2005;95:235–241.
8. 8. Yates B, White S. The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32:772–780.

9. 9. Easleyand ME, Trnka HJ.Current. Concepts review: hallux valgus part 1: pathomechanics, clinical assessment, and non operative management, Foot Ankle Int.2007;28:654–659.
10. 10. Sgarlato TE. A compendium of podiatric biomechanics. San Francisco: California College of Podiatric Medicine. 1971:265-81.
11. 11. Chen YC, Lou SZ, Huang CY, Su FC. Effects of foot orthoses on gait patterns offlat feet patients. Clin Biomech. 2010;25(3):265–70.
12. 12. Leung AK, Mak AF, Evans JH. Biomedical gait evaluation of the immediate effect of orthotic treatment for flexible flat foot. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1998;22(1):25–34.
13. 13. Menz H. Foot orthoses: how much customisation is necessary? J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2:23.
14. 14. Rana S. Hinman, Kelly Ann Bowles, Ben B. Metcalf, Tim V. Wrigley, Kim L. Bennell, Lateral wedge insoles for medial knee osteoarthritis: Effects on lower limb frontal plane biomechanics, Clinical Biomechanics.2012;27:27-33.
15. 15. Telfer S, Abbott M, Steultjens M, et al. Dose-response effects of customised foot orthoses on lower limb muscle activity and plantar pressures in pronated foot type. Gait Posture, 2013, 38: 443–449.
16. 16. Evrendilek H, Akalan NE, Sert R, Kuchimov S, Karaca G, Ertürk G, Bilgili F, Lucareli P. Describing the influences of using insoles on gait parameters in children with increased femoral anteversion and pes-planovalgus: plot study. Gait Posture. 2018; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.07.009.
17. 17. Kimberly AS, Donoso Brown EV. Rater reliability and construct validity of a mobile application for posture analysis J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2018; 30: 31–36.
18. 18. Özkan, A. Buluç, L, Çırpıcı, M, Müezzinoğlu, Ü, Kişioğlu, Y. "Tabanlık Yüksekliğinin Alt Ekstremite Üzerindeki Gerilme Dağılımına Ve Deformasyona Etkisi". Sakarya University Journal of Science. 2012;16:353-360.
19. 19. Kerrigan DC, Lelas JL, Goggins J, Merriman GJ, Kaplan RJ, Felson DT. Effectiveness of a lateral-wedge insole on knee varus torque in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:889-893.
20. 20. Yasuda K, Sasaki T. The mechanics of treatment of the osteoarthritic knee with a wedged insole. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:162-172. PMID: 3802634.
21. 21. Czerniecki JM. Foot and ankle biomechanics in walking and running: a review. Am J Phys Med Rehab 1988;67:246-252.
22. 22. Nigg BM, Cole GK, Nachbauer W. Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. J Biomech 1993;26:909-916.
23. 23. Messier SP, Pitala KA. Etiologic factors associated with selected running injuries. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1988;20:501-505.
24. 24. Klingman RE, Liaos SM, Hardin KM. The effect of subtalar joint posting on patellar glide position in subjects with excessive rearfoot pronation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1997;25: 185-191.
25. 25. Moss RI, Devita P, Dawson ML. A biomechanical analysis of patellofemoral stress syndrome. J Athl Train 1992;27:64-69.
26. 26. Gross MT. Lower quarter screening for skeletal malalignment: suggestion for orthotics and shoewear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1995;21:389-405.
27. 27. Hetsroni A, Finestone C, Milgrom D, Ben Sira M, Nyska D, Radeva-Petrova M. A prospective biomechanical study of the association between foot pronation and the incidence of anterior knee pain among military recruits. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88-B:905-908.
28. 28. Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB. Foot posture influences the electromyographic activity of selected lower limb muscles during gait. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;26;2-35.