ESMAC Runner up Award 2012Does excessive flatfoot deformity affect function? A comparison between symptomatic and asymptomatic flatfeet using the Oxford Foot Model
Introduction
Idiopathic flatfoot is a common finding in children and adolescents. Upon weight-bearing the heel is in valgus, the medial arch flattens and the forefoot deviates in abduction [1]. Deformity can be classified as flexible or rigid [2]. Experts agree that rigidity requires treatment [3].
Treatment in flexible flatfeet is however a subject of great controversy. Guidelines suggest to treat persistently symptomatic flexible flatfeet (SFF) only after ineffective conservative attempts [2], [4]. Asymptomatic flexible flatfeet (ASFF) are thought of as a physiological variant [5]. Prescribing orthotics or surgical intervention in ASFF is hotly debated [6], [7]. It has been suggested that after skeletal maturity initially ASFF might lose their flexibility risking secondary degeneration which could eventually require more complex surgical procedures [6], [8]. Besides, findings in adulthood show that flatfeet may be associated with knee pain [9], cartilage damage [10] and tibial stress syndrome [11]. It is therefore not unusual to find recommendations for preventive realignment in severe ASFF [12], while there in fact is no proof that untreated ASFF will become SFF [3].
Analysis of present foot function in ASFF is therefore of particular importance. It is generally assumed that flat footedness compromises walking [12]. While screening tests in schools pointed out that a low arch does not affect sport performance [13]. Clinical case series showed that about two-thirds of flexible flatfeet display symptoms and most ASFF report functional limitations [14]. This raises strong doubts that ASFF always function well [7]. In clinical practice, pathology is frequently evaluated by examination and radiological assessment. Although surgical approaches are recommended to be based on skeletal alignment [8], only the lateral talonavicular deviation seems to be clearly discriminative between ASFF and SFF [5]. Static radiographs do yet not indicate dynamic function.
Three-dimensional analysis of foot kinematics and kinetics during gait may be more suitable to study function and evaluate the degree of deformity. This had been already done by comparing flatfeet with typically developing feet (TDF) in paediatric and adult populations [15], [16], [17]. In children, ASFF have been characterized by increased supination of the forefoot [17]. In adults, ASFF displayed increased forefoot plantarflexion, abduction and larger hindfoot internal rotation [16]. SFF displayed increased forefoot abduction and an overall restraint in ROM [15]. While hindfoot eversion clinically appears very prominent, only one study showed a trend for increased eversion [16]. Concerning kinetics, it had been generally speculated that flat footedness affects shock absorption or propulsion [12]. Since there is a need to distinguish pathology from physiological variation, comparison between SFF and ASFF might be a promising to target indicators for pain.
The purpose of this study was to examine foot function during walking in symptomatic (SFF) and asymptomatic (ASFF) flatfeet. We aimed to discriminate 3D foot kinematics and kinetics in SFF and ASFF from TDF. First, we expected a kinematic continuum with SFF furthest deviating from TDF. Second, we expected a decline in flexibility, hence smaller ROM. Third, we hypothesized that both SFF and ASFF would be functionally limited and lacking shock absorption and propulsion.
Section snippets
Participants
Thirty-five children and adolescents with idiopathic flexible flatfeet at age 7 or older were included from our outpatient clinic. None had neuromuscular or neurogenic abnormalities. All were referred by general practitioners and depicted clinical findings of a bilateral valgus heel, a collapsed arch and a “too many toes” sign, with at least two of the three parameters graded as severe [12]. All flatfeet were classified as flexible showing heel inversion and a reconstituted arch during active
Results
Demographics are shown in Table 1. More males than females reported symptoms (10 vs. 4). Groups did not significantly differ on age, height or weight. BMI percentile appeared to be increased in flatfooted participants. Increases approached significance in ASFF (p = 0.06). Table 2 lists the symptoms and points out that SFF predominantly reported about pain (20/26) most often localized at the medial arch and at the Art. talocruralis. 6 SFF were not painful and reported only fatigue or discomfort.
Discussion
This study set out to distinguish foot function between symptomatic and asymptomatic paediatric and juvenile flexible flatfeet (SFF and ASFF) from typically developing feet (TDF). First, we found various considerable deviations in kinematics of flatfeet from TDF, but could overall not distinguish SFF from ASFF. Consequently, foot motion in SFF did not further deviate from the norm than in ASFF. Second, both type of flatfeet showed simultaneous constraint and excess in flexibility depending on
Conflict of interest statement
The authors of this manuscript declare no conflict of interest associated with this study.
References (35)
The natural history and pathophysiology of flexible flatfoot
Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery
(2010)The algorithmic approach to pediatric flexible pes planovalgus
Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery
(2006)- et al.
Clinical diagnosis and assessment of the pediatric pes planovalgus deformity
Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery
(2010) - et al.
Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking
Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
(2004) - et al.
comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal- and flat-arched feet using the Oxford Foot Model
Gait & Posture
(2010) - et al.
Kinematic differences between normal and low arched feet in children using the Heidelberg foot measurement method
Gait & Posture
(2010) - et al.
Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children
Gait & Posture
(2006) Scaling gait data to body size
Gait & Posture
(1996)- et al.
The role of isolated gastrocnemius and combined Achilles contractures in the flatfoot
Foot and Ankle Clinics
(2007) - et al.
Kinematic assessment of paediatric forefoot varus
Gait & Posture
(2009)
Intra-rater repeatability of the Oxford Foot Model in healthy children in different stages of the foot roll over process during gait
Gait & Posture
Repeatability of the modified Oxford Foot Model during gait in healthy adults
Gait & Posture
The effects of low arched feet on lower limb gait kinematics in children
Foot (Edinb)
Risk factors that may adversely modify the natural history of the pediatric pronated foot
Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery
Flexible flatfoot skewfoot
Drennans the child's foot and ankle
Evaluation and treatment of symptomatic pes planus
Current Opinion Pediatrics
The flat-footed child – to treat or not to treat: what is the clinician to do?
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association
Cited by (83)
Clinical, Radiographic and Gait Parameters Associated with Medial Arch Pain in the Flexible Pediatric Flatfoot
2023, Journal of Foot and Ankle SurgeryFirefighters' feet: Differences by sex and weight-bearing
2022, Applied ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :Changes were also seen in the half-weight, no gear condition. In addition, weight-bearing made the arch flatter (Fig. 4), which is known to be related to postural instability (Anzai et al., 2014) and fatigue/overuse of leg muscles (Hösl et al., 2014). It should be noted that for all of the weight-bearing conditions, the fire boots were not scanned.
Multisegment Foot Models
2022, Foot and Ankle Biomechanics