open access

Vol 76, No 4 (2017)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2017-05-25
Submitted: 2017-03-13
Accepted: 2017-05-01
Get Citation

How the three arches of the foot intercorrelate

A. S. Gwani, M. A. Asari, Z. I. Mohd Ismail
DOI: 10.5603/FM.a2017.0049
·
Pubmed: 28553850
·
Folia Morphol 2017;76(4):682-688.

open access

Vol 76, No 4 (2017)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2017-05-25
Submitted: 2017-03-13
Accepted: 2017-05-01

Abstract

Background: The foot is composed of medial, lateral and transverse arches which, particularly the medial arch, provide it with the ability to function both as a flexible and rigid structure for proper locomotion. Arches of the foot, as well as their effect on lower extremity function, have been studied. However, quantitative data on the relationship between these arches still remain scanty. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to examine how the three arches of the foot intercorrelate.

Materials and methods: Seventy-six participants (58 males, 18 females) were recruited to participate in the study. Bilateral weight-bearing lateral radiographs of the right foot were taken from each participant. Navicular heights (NH), medial cuneiform height (MCH), calcaneal inclination angle (CIA) and calcaneal-first metatarsal angle (C1MA) were measured to represent the medial arch. The lateral arch was represented by cuboid height (CH) and calcaneal-fifth metatarsal angle (C5MA) whereas; MCH and CH represented the transverse arch. Mean difference of variables between males and females was compared using independent t-test while the correlation between the variables was determined using Pearson correlation.

Results: All the variables were not significantly related to gender. Significant moderate to excellent linear correlations were observed between the variables. CIA showed the strongest correlation with C1MA (r = –0.90) and C5MA (r = –0.84) whereas, CH had the least correlation with other variables.

Conclusions: The moderate to excellent correlations between the variables indicate that deformation or elevation of the medial arch may consequently result in similar movements of the lateral and transverse arches and vice versa.

Abstract

Background: The foot is composed of medial, lateral and transverse arches which, particularly the medial arch, provide it with the ability to function both as a flexible and rigid structure for proper locomotion. Arches of the foot, as well as their effect on lower extremity function, have been studied. However, quantitative data on the relationship between these arches still remain scanty. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to examine how the three arches of the foot intercorrelate.

Materials and methods: Seventy-six participants (58 males, 18 females) were recruited to participate in the study. Bilateral weight-bearing lateral radiographs of the right foot were taken from each participant. Navicular heights (NH), medial cuneiform height (MCH), calcaneal inclination angle (CIA) and calcaneal-first metatarsal angle (C1MA) were measured to represent the medial arch. The lateral arch was represented by cuboid height (CH) and calcaneal-fifth metatarsal angle (C5MA) whereas; MCH and CH represented the transverse arch. Mean difference of variables between males and females was compared using independent t-test while the correlation between the variables was determined using Pearson correlation.

Results: All the variables were not significantly related to gender. Significant moderate to excellent linear correlations were observed between the variables. CIA showed the strongest correlation with C1MA (r = –0.90) and C5MA (r = –0.84) whereas, CH had the least correlation with other variables.

Conclusions: The moderate to excellent correlations between the variables indicate that deformation or elevation of the medial arch may consequently result in similar movements of the lateral and transverse arches and vice versa.

Get Citation

Keywords

foot, arch, correlation, morphology, deformity

About this article
Title

How the three arches of the foot intercorrelate

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 76, No 4 (2017)

Pages

682-688

Published online

2017-05-25

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2017.0049

Pubmed

28553850

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2017;76(4):682-688.

Keywords

foot
arch
correlation
morphology
deformity

Authors

A. S. Gwani
M. A. Asari
Z. I. Mohd Ismail

References (32)
  1. Akdoğan I, Akkaya S, Akkaya N, et al. Comparison of the calcaneal pitch angle and modified projection area per length squared method for medial longitudinal arch evaluation of the foot. Balkan Med J. 2012; 29(4): 406–409.
  2. Bálint GP, Korda J, Hangody L, et al. Regional musculoskeletal conditions: foot and ankle disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003; 17(1): 87–111.
  3. Bourdet C, Seringe R, Adamsbaum C, et al. Flatfoot in children and adolescents. Analysis of imaging findings and therapeutic implications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013; 99(1): 80–87.
  4. Buldt AK, Murley GS, Levinger P, et al. Are clinical measures of foot posture and mobility associated with foot kinematics when walking? J Foot Ankle Res. 2015; 8: 63.
  5. Colton T. Statistics in medicine. 1st ed. Little, Brown & Company, Boston 1974.
  6. Dugan SA, Bhat KP. Biomechanics and analysis of running gait. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005; 16(3): 603–621.
  7. Early JS, Bucholz RW. Lisfranc injuries and their management. Current Orthopaedics. 1996; 10(3): 169–173.
  8. Franco AH. Pes cavus and pes planus. Analyses and treatment. Phys Ther. 1987; 67(5): 688–694.
  9. Fukano M, Fukubayashi T. Motion characteristics of the medial and lateral longitudinal arch during landing. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009; 105(3): 387–392.
  10. Glasoe WM, Yack HJ, Saltzman CL. Anatomy and Biomechanics of the First Ray. Physical Therapy. 1999; 79(9): 854–859.
  11. Hillstrom HJ, Song J, Kraszewski AP, et al. Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. Gait Posture. 2013; 37(3): 445–451.
  12. Kapandji I. The physiology of the joints. Longman Group Limited, Churchill Livingstone., London 1970.
  13. Lautzenheiser SG, Kramer PA. Linear and angular measurements of the foot of modern humans: a test of Morton's foot types. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2013; 296(10): 1526–1533.
  14. Lundgren P, Nester C, Liu A, et al. Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. Gait Posture. 2008; 28(1): 93–100.
  15. Lung CW, Yang SW, Hsieh LF. Is the Arch Index Meaningful. Korean Journal of Sport Biomechanics. 2009; 19(2): 187–196.
  16. Menz H, Munteanu S. Validity of 3 Clinical Techniques for the Measurement of Static Foot Posture in Older People. J Orthopaedic Sports Physical Therapy. 2005; 35(8): 479–486.
  17. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Clinically Oriented Anatomy. Wolters Kluwer Health 2013.
  18. Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB. A protocol for classifying normal- and flat-arched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009; 2: 22.
  19. Nester CJ, Jarvis HL, Jones RK, et al. Movement of the human foot in 100 pain free individuals aged 18-45: implications for understanding normal foot function. J Foot Ankle Res. 2014; 7(1): 51.
  20. Nester CJ, Liu AM, Ward E, et al. In vitro study of foot kinematics using a dynamic walking cadaver model. J Biomech. 2007; 40(9): 1927–1937.
  21. Oatis CA. Biomechanics of the foot and ankle under static conditions. Phys Ther. 1988; 68(12): 1815–1821.
  22. Philbin T, Rosenberg G, Sferra JJ. Complications of missed or untreated Lisfranc injuries. Foot Ankle Clin. 2003; 8(1): 61–71.
  23. Pohl MB, Farr L. A comparison of foot arch measurement reliability using both digital photography and calliper methods. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010; 3: 14.
  24. Roth S, Roth A, Jotanovic Z, et al. Navicular index for differentiation of flatfoot from normal foot. Int Orthop. 2013; 37(6): 1107–1112.
  25. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD. Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 76(1): 45–49.
  26. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA. Complexities of foot architecture as a base of support. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1995; 21(6): 354–360.
  27. Seringe R, Wicart P. The talonavicular and subtalar joints: the "calcaneopedal unit" concept. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013; 99(6 Suppl): S345–S355.
  28. Sinacore DR, Gutekunst DJ, Hastings MK, et al. Neuropathic midfoot deformity: associations with ankle and subtalar joint motion. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013; 6(1): 11.
  29. Takai S. Structural components of the arch of the foot analyzed by radiogrammetric and multivariate statistical methods. Cells Tissues Organs. 1984; 119(3): 161–164.
  30. Viladot A. Biomechanics of the subtalar joint. Foot. 1992; 2(2): 83–88.
  31. Wicart P. Cavus foot, from neonates to adolescents. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012; 98(7): 813–828.
  32. Yalçin N, Esen E, Kanatli U, et al. Evaluation of the medial longitudinal arch: a comparison between the dynamic plantar pressure measurement system and radiographic analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010; 44(3): 241–245.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl