A comparison of two studies of the pressure distribution under the feet of normal subjects using different equipment.

J Hughes, P Clark, K Linge, L Klenerman
{"title":"A comparison of two studies of the pressure distribution under the feet of normal subjects using different equipment.","authors":"J Hughes,&nbsp;P Clark,&nbsp;K Linge,&nbsp;L Klenerman","doi":"10.1177/107110079301400905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is growing interest in the use of foot pressure measurement both clinically and in the study of normal subjects. A number of systems are now commercially available, but comparison of the results is complicated by the different techniques employed. This paper compares the results of two studies. The first examined a large group of normal subjects using the dynamic pedobarograph. The second was identical to the first except that the EMED F system was used. The second study was carried out in order to verify existing results and to assess the clinical significance of the expected differences. Comparison of the results from the two studies showed that the median peak pressures demonstrated similar patterns with the highest pressure in the forefoot under the second/third metatarsal heads and the toes taking gradually reduced pressure from the first to the fifth toe. The EMED F showed higher peak pressures than the dynamic pedobarograph under the heel, the medial four metatarsal heads, and the great toe and showed lower peak pressures and shorter contact times under the lateral four toes. The pattern of loading across the metatarsal heads was further analyzed using an objective method of splitting the subjects into groups. Four groups were isolated from both sets of results, and this has confirmed that only a proportion of normal subjects demonstrate highest loading under the first metatarsal head whereas the remainder show highest loading centrally within the forefoot.</p>","PeriodicalId":77133,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle","volume":"14 9","pages":"514-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/107110079301400905","citationCount":"82","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079301400905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 82

Abstract

There is growing interest in the use of foot pressure measurement both clinically and in the study of normal subjects. A number of systems are now commercially available, but comparison of the results is complicated by the different techniques employed. This paper compares the results of two studies. The first examined a large group of normal subjects using the dynamic pedobarograph. The second was identical to the first except that the EMED F system was used. The second study was carried out in order to verify existing results and to assess the clinical significance of the expected differences. Comparison of the results from the two studies showed that the median peak pressures demonstrated similar patterns with the highest pressure in the forefoot under the second/third metatarsal heads and the toes taking gradually reduced pressure from the first to the fifth toe. The EMED F showed higher peak pressures than the dynamic pedobarograph under the heel, the medial four metatarsal heads, and the great toe and showed lower peak pressures and shorter contact times under the lateral four toes. The pattern of loading across the metatarsal heads was further analyzed using an objective method of splitting the subjects into groups. Four groups were isolated from both sets of results, and this has confirmed that only a proportion of normal subjects demonstrate highest loading under the first metatarsal head whereas the remainder show highest loading centrally within the forefoot.

使用不同设备对正常人足下压力分布的两项研究的比较。
在临床和正常受试者的研究中,人们对使用足压测量越来越感兴趣。许多系统现在已经商业化,但是由于所采用的技术不同,结果的比较比较复杂。本文比较了两项研究的结果。第一个研究使用动态儿童气压计检查了一大群正常受试者。第二个与第一个相同,只是使用了EMED系统。第二项研究是为了验证现有的结果,并评估预期差异的临床意义。两项研究结果的比较表明,中位峰值压力表现出相似的模式,在第二/第三跖骨头下的前足压力最高,脚趾从第一到第五趾的压力逐渐减少。与动态足气压计相比,动态足气压计在足跟、内侧四跖头和大脚趾处显示出更高的峰值压力,而在外侧四趾处显示出更低的峰值压力和更短的接触时间。通过将受试者分组的客观方法进一步分析跨跖骨头的负荷模式。从两组结果中分离出四组,这证实了只有一部分正常受试者在第一跖骨头下方表现出最高负荷,而其余受试者在前足中央表现出最高负荷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信