The efficiency of medial longitudinal inserts for standing balance in flatfoot patients
碩士 === 國立陽明大學 === 醫學工程研究所 === 91 === Hyperpronative feet could cause poor standing balance and poor proprioception. Adults with flat feet demonstrate several biomechanical inefficiencies in the foot and ankle, and a variety of gait abnormalities. While watching the child walk, there may be clumsines...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | zh-TW |
| Published: |
2003
|
| Online Access: | http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/75719896229544999584 |
| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立陽明大學 === 醫學工程研究所 === 91 === Hyperpronative feet could cause poor standing balance and poor proprioception. Adults with flat feet demonstrate several biomechanical inefficiencies in the foot and ankle, and a variety of gait abnormalities. While watching the child walk, there may be clumsiness or looseness to their gait or poor balance. But there was no literatures to prove the difference between flatfoot and normal feet in standing balance. In this study we hope to identify the difference in dynamic balance between 2 groups and to determine the efficiency of medial longitudinal inserts in flatfoot. Arch Index greater than 0.26 was defined as flatfoot. Sixteen young men were included in this study(mean values of Arch Index: R=0.354、L=0.347)and fourteen normal individuals were as a control group(values of Arch Index between 0.211-0.259). The Computerized Balanced-test Machine（self designed）and Isokinetic Dynanometer(Con-Trex system) were using for measurement. Balance test included double-legs opened eyes、double-legs closed eyes, dominated side single-leg standing and non-dominated side single-leg standing. Muscle strength testing included isokinetic testing with speed 180o /s for knee and speed 120o /s for ankle. There is no difference between flatfoot and normal feet in ages、height、weight and lower limbs strength. Flatfoot were poor balance performance than normal feet statistically except double-legs closed eyes this subtest(p=0.193＞0.05). There is no difference in mean tilt angle in flatfoot with/without inserts（p>0.05）. M-L tilt angle was decreased and A-P tilt angle increased found flatfoot with inserts. There was no significant difference between dominated and non-dominated side in single-leg with/without inserts in both group statistically. It had no correlation with Arch Index value between dominated and non-dominated side single-leg standing performance. Flatfoot has poor balance performance than normal group. The medial longitudinal inserts can reduce M-L tilt angle. This also can relieve pain, restrict hindfoot over motions and then provide flatfoot with normal foot structure walking in their life span.
|
|---|