Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research logoLink to Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
. 2014 Apr 8;7(Suppl 1):A36. doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-7-S1-A36

The effect of foot structure and functional foot stability on the gait patterns of the foot

Malia T Ho 1,✉, John Tan 1
PMCID: PMC4101394

Background

Poor foot structure, such as flat feet or high arched feet were thought to cause excessive foot movement during gait, which in turn is the pre-cursor to foot injuries [1,3].

However, some studies claimed that the differences in gait patterns may not be due to foot structure alone [4,8,11]. It has been suggested that good foot functional stability can ‘protect’ the mal-aligned foot from injuries [9].

Functional Foot Stability is defined in this study as ‘the ability of the foot to continually adjust its position to maintain the body in an upright, balanced position’. An individual with good functional foot stability will be able to sense the foot position and if necessary, correct the position of the foot, thus preventing potential foot injuries.

Whilst studies have been also done to relate foot structure and functional stability [6], as well as functional stability and gait patterns [12,14], no study has been done to investigate the combined effect of foot structure and functional foot stability on gait patterns. Therefore, this study examines the combined effect of foot structure and functional foot stability on running gait patterns.

Method

Sixty-five subjects (mean age 31 years SD 7.1) had their foot structure scored according to the Foot Posture Index (FPI) [5,10,13] and their functional foot stability was assessed with balance errors scored according to the criteria set out by the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) [2,7]. Subjects were then put into six groups- Flat foot Stable, Flat foot Unstable, Normal Stable, Normal Unstable, High Arched Stable and High Arch Unstable. The total excursion of the rearfoot, midfoot and first metatarso-phlangeal joints were noted with three dimensional motion analysis. The results were then analysed using ANOVA.

Results and conclusion

The results showed a significant difference in total excursion of rearfoot inversion/eversion of the flat foot unstable group compared to the other groups.

References

  1. Tong J, Kong P. Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. J. Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013. (Epub ahead of print) [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Bell D, Guskiewicz K, Clark M, Padua D. Systemic review of the Balance Error Scoring System. Sports Health. 2011;3(3):287–295. doi: 10.1177/1941738111403122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Burns J, Keenan A, Redmond A. Foot type and overse injury in triathletes. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2005;95(3):235–241. doi: 10.7547/0950235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chuter V. Relationships between foot type and dynamic rearfoot frontal plane motion. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 2010;3(9) doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-3-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cornwall M, McPoil T, Lebec M, Vicenzino B, Wilson J. Reliability of the Modified Foot Posture Index. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008;98(1):7–13. doi: 10.7547/0980007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cote K, Brunet M, Gansneder B, Shultz S. Effects of pronated and supinated foot postures on static and dynamic postural stability. Journal of Athl Train. 2005;40(1):41–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Docherty C, Valovich McLeod T, Shultz S. Postural control deficits in participants with functional ankle instability as measured by the balance error scoring system. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16(3):203–208. doi: 10.1097/00042752-200605000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fan Y, Fan Y, Li Z, Li C, Luo D. Natural gaits of the non-pathological flat foot and high arched foot. PLos ONE. 2011;6(3):e17749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017749. Retrieved from doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hunt A, Smith R. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clinical Biomechanics. 2004;19:391–197. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.12.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Keenan A, Redmond A, Horton M, Conaghan P, Tennant A. The Foot Posture Index: Rasch Analysis of a novel foot specific outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:88–83. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Levinger P, Murley G, Barton C, Cotchett M, McSweeney S, Menz H. A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal and flat arched foot using the Oxford Foot Model. Gait and Posture. 2010;32:519–523. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu K, Uygur M, Kaminski T. Effect of ankle instability on gait reports. Athletic Training and Sports Health Care. 2012;4 doi: 10.3928/19425864-20120523-01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Redmond A, Crane Y, Menz H. Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Ridder R Willems T Roosen P Plantar pressure distribution during gait and runnning in subjects with chronic ankle instability Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012 10.1186/1757-1146-5-S1-P3221189193 [DOI]

Articles from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES