Öz
Purpose: The purpose of our study is to determine the prevalence of pes planus, pes cavus and flattening of the transverse arch and the correlation of the shoe types used by the young people who are student at the Vocational School of Health Services of Ankara University. Material and method: 239 students, aged between 18-30 years, who were student at Ankara University Health Services Vocational School were evaluated within the scope of the study.The cases were analyzed using the footprint method on the tarsus ground with respect to the presence of pes planus, pes cavus and transverse arch.The results were evaluated according to the demographic characteristics and whether they correlated with the shoe type. Results: The prevalence was %15 (36) for pes planus and %8,3 (20) for pes cavus and %11,71 (28) for flattening of the transvers arch.The most common foot pathology was flattening of the transvers arch (18.18%) followed by pes planus (13.63%) and pes cavus (13.63%) in men wearing classical shoes. The most common foot pathology was pes planus (20,38%) followed by flattening transvers arch (15,53%) and pes cavus (8,73%) respectively in men wearing sport shoes.The distribution of foot arch pathologies was found to be equal (6.25%) in women with the habit of wearing traditional shoes. The most common foot arch pathology was found to be pes planus (33.34%) and the other foot arch pathologies were found to be equal and very low (2%) in wearing shoes with high heel. In students exercising flattening of the transvers arch was the most common arch pathology with frequency of %20.25 and otherwise pes planus was the most common with 13.75 % in students doing no exercise. Discussion:The use of sport shoes in young people affects positively the development of the medial longitudinal arch.Footwear with a large support surface and a heel height of 2.5-3.5 cm does not lead to flattening transvers arch. However, it has been observed that exercise habits increase the flattening transvers arch
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- BURNS J, CROSBIE J, HUNT A, OUVRIER R. 2005. The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clinical Biomechanics.20(9):877-882.
- DUNN JE, LINK CL, FELSON DT, CRINCOLI MG, KEYSOR JJ, MCKINLAY JB. 2004. Prevalence of foot and ankle conditions in a multi ethniccommunitysample of older adults. Am J Epidemiol. 159(5):491-498.
- ESTERMAN A, PILOTTO L. 2005. Foot shapeandits effect on functioning in Royal Australian Air Force recruits. Part 1: Prospective cohort study. Mil Med. 170:623-628.
- GOULD N, SCHNEIDER W, ASHIKAGA T. 1980. Epidemiological survey of foot problems in the continental United States: 1978–1979. Foot Ankle Int. 1(1):8-10.
- HENRY APJ, WAUGH W, WOOD H. 1975. The use of foot prıints in assessing the results of operations for hallux valgus. J Bone and Joint Surg. 57(4):478-481.
- KOSASHVILI Y, FRIDMAN T, BACKSTEIN D, SAFIR O, BAR ZIV Y. 2008. The correlation between pes planus and anterior knee or intermittent low back pain. Foot Ankle Int. 29(9):910-913. LAKSTEIN D, FRIDMAN T, ZIV YB, KOSASHVILI Y. 2010. Prevalence of anterior knee pain and pes planus in Israel defense force recruits. Mil Med. 175(11):855-7.
- LEVY JC, MIZEL MS, WILSON LS, ET AL. 2006. Incidence of foot and ankle injuries in west point cadets with pes planus compared with the general cadet population. Foot Ankle Int. 27(12):1060-4.
- SHIBUYA N, JUPITER DC, CILIBERTI LJ, VANBUREN V, LA FONTAINE J. 2010. Characteristics of adult flat foot in the United States. Foot Ankle Surg. 49:363-368
- SINCLAIR C, SVANTESSON U, SJÖSTRÖM R, ALRICSSON M. 2017. Differences in pes planus and pes cavus subtalar eversion/inversion before and after prolonged running, using a two- dimensional digital analysis. J Exerc Rehabil. 13(2): 232-239.
- STAHELI LT, CHEWDE, CORBETT M. 1987. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 69:426-428.