Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Foot morphology has received increasing attention from both biomechanics researches and footwear manufacturers. Usually, the morphology of the foot is quantified by 2D footprints. However, footprint quantification ignores the foot’s vertical dimension and hence, does not allow accurate quantification of complex 3D foot shape.
The shape variation of healthy 3D feet in a population of 31 adult women and 31 adult men who live in Belgium was studied using geometric morphometric methods. The effect of different factors such as sex, age, shoe size, frequency of sport activity, Body Mass Index (BMI), foot asymmetry, and foot loading on foot shape was investigated. Correlation between these factors and foot shape was examined using multivariate linear regression.
The complex nature of a foot’s 3D shape leads to high variability in healthy populations. After normalizing for scale, the major axes of variation in foot morphology are (in order of decreasing variance): arch height, combined ball width and inter-toe distance, global foot width, hallux bone orientation (valgus-varus), foot type (e.g. Egyptian, Greek), and midfoot width. These first six modes of variation capture 92.59% of the total shape variation. Higher BMI results in increased ankle width, Achilles tendon width, heel width and a thicker forefoot along the dorsoplantar axis. Age was found to be associated with heel width, Achilles tendon width, toe height and hallux orientation. A bigger shoe size was found to be associated with a narrow Achilles tendon, a hallux varus, a narrow heel, heel expansion along the posterior direction, and a lower arch compared to smaller shoe size. Sex was found to be associated with differences in ankle width, Achilles tendon width, and heel width. Frequency of sport activity was associated with Achilles tendon width and toe height.
A detailed analysis of the 3D foot shape, allowed by geometric morphometrics, provides insights in foot variations in three dimensions that can not be obtained from 2D footprints. These insights could be applied in various scientific disciplines, including orthotics and shoe design.
Domjanic J, Fieder M, Seidler H, Mitteroecker P. Geometric morphometric footprint analysis of young women. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-6-27.
Stavlas P, Grivas TB, Michas C, Vasiliadis E, Polyzois V. The evolution of foot morphology in children between 6 and 17 years of age: A cross-sectional study based on footprints in a Mediterranean population. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2005; 44(6):424–8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2005.07.023. CrossRefPubMed
Krishan K. Estimation of stature from footprint and foot outline dimensions in Gujjars of North India. Forensic Sci Int. 2008; 175(2-3):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.05.014. CrossRefPubMed
Wunderlich RE, Cavanagh PR. Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001:605–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200104000-00015.
Tomassoni D, Traini E, Amenta F. Gender and age related differences in foot morphology. Maturitas. 2014; 79(4):421–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.07.019. CrossRefPubMed
Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Relationship between static foot posture and foot mobility. J Foot Ankle Res. 2011; 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-4-4.
Billis E, Katsakiori E, Kapodistrias C, Kapreli E. Assessment of foot posture: Correlation between different clinical techniques. The Foot. 2007; 17(2):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2006.09.005. CrossRef
Knapik JJ, Brosch LC, Venuto M, Swedler DI, Bullock SH, Gaines LS, Murphy RJ, Tchandja J, Jones BH. Effect on injuries of assigning shoes based on foot shape in air force basic training. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38(1 Suppl.):197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.10.013. CrossRef
Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture. 2002; 15(3):282–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(01)00151-5. CrossRefPubMed
Keijsers NLW, Stolwijk NM, Louwerens JWK, Duysens J. Classification of forefoot pain based on plantar pressure measurements. Clin Biomech. 2013; 28(3):350–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.01.012. CrossRef
Wilson MT. U.S. Patent No. 5,482,513. Washington: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; 1996.
Baek S-Y, Lee K. Parametric human body shape modeling framework for human-centered product design. Comput Des. 2012; 44(1):56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.006.
Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal. 1997; 1(3):225–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-8415(97)85012-8. CrossRefPubMed
Danckaers F, Huysmans T, Lacko D, Ledda A, Verwulgen S, Van Dongen S, Sijbers J. Correspondence preserving elastic surface registration with shape model prior. In: Proceedings - International Conference on Pattern Recognition: 2014. p. 2143–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2014.373.
Stankovic K, Danckaers F, Booth BG, Burg F, Duerinck S, Sijbers J, Huysmans T. Foot Abnormality Mapping using Statistical Shape Modelling. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on 3D Body Scanning Technologies, Lugano, Switzerland, 30 Nov.-1 Dec. 2016: 2016. p. 70–9. https://doi.org/10.15221/16.070.
Kurup HV, Clark CIM, Dega RK. Footwear and orthopaedics. Foot Ankle Surg. 2012; 18(2):79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2011.03.012. CrossRefPubMed
Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L. Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait Posture. 2007; 26(1):68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.07.009. CrossRefPubMed
San Tsung BY, Zhang M, Fan YB, Boone DA. Quantitative comparison of plantar foot shapes under different weight-bearing conditions. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003; 40(6):517. CrossRef
Cappello T, Song KM. Determining treatment of flatfeet in children. Curr Opin Pediatr. 1998; 10(1):77–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008480-199802000-00016. CrossRefPubMed
Mei L, Figl M, Darzi A, Rueckert D, Edwards P. Sample sufficiency and PCA dimension for statistical shape models In: Forsyth D, Torr P, Zisserman A, editors. Computer Vision – ECCV 2008. ECCV 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5305. Berlin: Springer: 2008. p. 492–503.
Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L. The Importance of the Normality Assumption in Large Public Health Data Sets. Annu Rev Pub Health. 2002; 23(1):151–69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546. CrossRef
FOOTWORK. Automated Digital Process for Higher Orthotics Quality, iMinds ICON Project. https://www.imec-int.com/en/what-we-offer/research-portfolio/footwork. Accessed Sept 2017.
- Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of healthy foot shape: a proof of concept study
Brian G. Booth
- BioMed Central