The Effect of Medial Arch Support for Flexible Flat Foot of Children

소아의 유연성 편평족에서 내측 세로궁 지지대의 효과

  • Song, Hae-Ryong (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hak-Jun (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yoon, Yong-Cheol (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine)
  • 송해룡 (고려대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 김학준 (고려대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 윤용철 (고려대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실)
  • Received : 2010.10.24
  • Accepted : 2010.11.18
  • Published : 2010.12.15

Abstract

Purpose: The author evaluated the clinical and radiological results after wearing the medial arch supports in children. Materials and Methods: 103 patients who had symptomatic flat feet were evaluated from march, 2002 to may 2009. All patients wore the medial arch supports according to the symptoms. We measured parameters at weight-bearing radiographs before and after medial arch support were worn. We also evaluated the clinical scores using the AOFAS score. Results: Mean age of patients was 97 months (11-204 months), all foot of patients involved bilaterally. Mean talo-first metatarsal angle of right foot was $17.7{\pm}9.4$ and left foot was $19.96{\pm}9.5$ degrees at AP radiograph in pre-wearing state. Mean calcaneal pitch angle of right foot was $12.0{\pm}5.3$ and left foot was $11.9{\pm}5.8$ degrees at lateral radiograph in pre-wearing state. Mean talo-first metatarsal angle of right foot was $14.4{\pm}8.05$ and left foot was $13.1{\pm}8.77$ degrees at AP radiograph in post-wearing state. Mean calcaneal pitch angle of right foot was $16.4{\pm}5.75$ left foot was $16.5{\pm}5.6$ degrees at lateral radiograph in post-wearing state. The radiographic angles between pre-wearing and post-wearing state were statistically significant (p<0.05). Mean pre-wearing AOFAS hindfoot score was $66.7{\pm}9.25$, midfoot score was $60.0{\pm}9.34$ forefoot score was $57.1{\pm}11.8$. Mean post-wearing AOFAS hindfoot score was $73.2{\pm}9.73$, midfoot score was $68.1{\pm}10.1$, forefoot score was $67.2{\pm}11.4$. The forefoot score was highest improving scores among the AOFAS scores. Conclusion: From our study, we concluded that medial arch support was effective for symptomatic flat feet of children in radiological and clinical results from our study.

Keywords

References

  1. AnanthkrishnanD, Ching R, Tencer A, Hansen S, Sanzeorgan B. Subluxation of talocalcaneal joint in adults who have symptomatic flat foot. J Bone Joint Surg. 1999;81:1147-54.
  2. Basmajian JV, Stecko G. The role of muscles in arch support of the foot: an electromyographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963;45:1184-90.
  3. Ferri M, Schrafenberger AV,Goplen G, Daniels TR, Pearce D. Weightbearing CT scan of severe flexible pes planus deformities. Foot ankle Int. 2008;29:199-204. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2008.0199
  4. Kuhn DR, Shibley NJ, Austin WM, Yochum TR. Radiographic evaluation of weight-bearing orthotics and their effect on flexible pes planus. May. 1999;22:221-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70048-5
  5. Kulcu DG, Yavuzer G, Sarmer S, Ergin S. Immediate effects of silicone insoles on gait patterns in patients with flexible flat foot. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28:1053-57. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2007.1053
  6. Lin CJ, Lai KA, Kuan TS, Chou YL . Correlating factors and clinical significance of flexible flat foot in preschool children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21:378-82.
  7. Mann RA. Biomechanics of foot and ankle,in surgery of foot and ankle. In: Mann RA, Coughlin MJ, ed. Surgeny of the Foot and Ankle. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book Inc; 1993. 3-43.
  8. Mickle KJ, Steele JR, Munro BJ. Is the foot structure of preschool children moderated by gender? J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28:593-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318173f782
  9. Mueller M, Smith K, Commeon P, Robertson D, Johnson J. Use of computed tomography and plantar pressure management of neuropathic ulcers in management of diabetes. Physical Therapy. 1999;79:296-307.
  10. El O, Akcali O, Kosay C, et al. Flexible flat foot and related factors in primary school children: a report of screening study. Rheumatol Int. 2006;26:1050-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-006-0128-1
  11. Pehlivan O, Cili F, Mahirogullari M, Karabudak O, Koksal O. Radiographic correction of symptomatic and asymptomatic flat foot in young adult males. Int Orthop. 2009;33:447-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0508-5
  12. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. The longitudinal arch. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:426-8.
  13. Sullivan JA. Paediatric flat foot: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1999;7:44-53.
  14. Tareco J, Miller, Mac Williams B, Michaelson J. Defining flat foot. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:456-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079902000711
  15. Toolan BC, Sangeorzan BJ, Hansen ST Jr. complex reconstruction for the treatment of dorsolateral peritalar subluxation of foot. Early results after distraction arthrodesis of the calcaneocuboid joint in conjunction with stabilization of and transfer of the flexor digitorum longus tendon to the midfoot to treat acquired pes planovalgus in adults. J Bone Joint Surg. 1999;81:1545-60.
  16. Volopon JB. Footprint analysis during growth period. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14:83-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01241398-199401000-00017
  17. Younger A S, Sawatzly B, Dryden P. Radiographic assessment of adult flat foot . Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:820-5.