Search

Purpose: Different arch structures may cause different foot function injuries. In the past, the arch structure and flexibility of the foot were often defined by the height of the arch, and there was no three-dimensional (3D) structure classification method. In order to form a more complete 3D description, we propose a new classification system of arch volume flexibility (AVF), and then use this new classification system to investigate the relationship between the AVF and arch index (AI), and the arch height flexibility (AHF) and AI, respectively. Methods: It is proposed to recruit 180 young male adults for the test. We obtained arch volume and AI through 3D scanning and obtained the navicular height through manual measurement. Based on these data, we calculated the AHF and the AVF. Using the quintile method, these arches are divided into very stiff, stiff, neutral, flexible, and very flexible. According to AI value, all arches were divided into cavus, rectus, and planus. The distribution of AVF was compared using χ2 goodness of fit test. The spearman correlation test was used to compare the AHF and AVF. A p

Different arch structures may cause different foot function injuries. In the past, the arch structure and flexibility of the foot were often defined by the height of the arch, and there was no three-dimensional (3D) structure classification method. In order to form a more complete 3D description, we propose a new classification system of arch volume flexibility (AVF), and then use this new classification system to investigate the relationship between the AVF and arch index (AI), and the arch height flexibility (AHF) and AI, respectively. It is proposed to recruit 180 young male adults for the test. We obtained arch volume and AI through 3D scanning and obtained the navicular height through manual measurement. Based on these data, we calculated the AHF and the AVF. Using the quintile method, these arches are divided into very stiff, stiff, neutral, flexible, and very flexible. According to AI value, all arches were divided into cavus, rectus, and planus. The distribution of AVF was compared using χ2 goodness of fit test. The spearman correlation test was used to compare the AHF and AVF. A p < 0.05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant. All participants' plantar data was obtained through 3D scanning, but only 159 of them were complete, so only 318 feet had valid data. The left AHF is (21.23 ± 12.91) mm/kN, and the right AHF is (21.71 ± 12.69) mm/kN. The AVF of the left foot arch is (207.35 ± 118.28) mm3/kg, while the right one is (203.00 ± 117.92) mm3/kg, and the total AVF of the arch was (205.17 ± 117.94) mm3/kg. There was no statistical difference in the AVF between the left and right feet for the same participant (n = 159, p = 0.654). In cavus, the percentage of arch with AVF is 21.4% (very stiff), 21.4% (stiff), 14.3% (neutral), 7.1% (flexible), and 35.7% (very flexible). In rectus, the percentage of arch with AVF is 23.9% (very stiff), 19.6% (stiff), 14.7% (neutral), 24.5% (flexible), and 17.2% (very flexible). In planus, the percentage of arch with AVF is 14.9% (very stiff), 20.6% (stiff), 27.0% (neutral), 16.3% (flexible), and 21.3% (very flexible). Moreover, the correlation between AHF and AVF is not significant (p = 0.060). In cavus, rectus, and planus, different AVF accounts different percentage, but the difference is not statistically significant. AVF is evenly distributed in the arches of the feet at different heights. We further found the relationship between AHF and AVF is not significant. As a 3D index, AVF may be able to describe the flexibility of the arch more comprehensively than AHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]