Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Comparison of plantar pressure on normal -footed vs. high arch-footed badminton players in two-way lunge

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

1 Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Department of Corrective Exercise and Sport Injuries, School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, International Campus, Kharazmi University,Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Sports Coaching, School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Physiotherapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Compared to the individuals with a normal arch structure, thosewith high or low arch can be at an increased risk of overuse injuries. The riskof overuse injury among athletes is high due, in part, to the repeated loadingof the lower extremities. The current study aimed to determine if foot type(high-arched or normal) results in differences in plantar pressure during twobadminton-specific movements (right-reverse lunge and right-lateral lunge).Methods: Twenty badminton players (10 with normal feet and 10 with higharchedfeet) completed five trials in both right-reverse and right-lateral lunge,while in-shoe pressure data were collected at 100 Hz. The peak pressure andmean pressure were analyzed among the subjects for five major anatomicalregions of the foot, using the independent t test in SPSS version 20. The foot typewas determined by the foot posture index (FPI) (α<0.05).Results: Results showed that the plantar pressure characteristics of normal andhigh-arched feet were different; such that in high-arched feet, as compared tonormal subjects, there were significantly fewer pressure strikes in the medial(P=0.010) and lateral (P=0.002) mid-foot in right-reverse lunge and this wassignificantly higher in forefoot (P=0.003) and toes (P=0.010). However, thepeak (P=0.157) and mean (P=0.104) pressure in the heel was higher but notsignificant. In the right- lateral lunge, we found statistically lower peak pressurestroke for the lateral mid-foot (P=0.010) and forefoot (P=0.011); however, themean pressure was lower in the lateral (P=0.010) and medial (P=0.040) mid-footand forefoot (P=0.120), although it was not significant in the forefoot.Conclusion: Results showed that the medial longitudinal arch of the foot mightcause pressure differences in the feet among the players with normal and higharchedfeet. As the results demonstrated, in high-arched feet, there are some regionswhere plantar pressure is higher and some where it is lower. Therefore, in orderto prevent the badminton players from suffering probable foot injuries, attentionshould be paid to the compatibility of the insole/shoe and the medial longitudinalarch and other areas of the foot that suffer more pressures than normal subjects.. 

Keywords

References
  1. Kondrič M, Matković B, Furjan-Mandić G, Hadžić V, Dervišević
  2. E. Injuries in racket sports among slovenian players. Collegium
  3. antropologicum. 2011;35(2):413-7.
  4. Carson DW, Myer GD, Hewett TE, Heidt RS, Ford KR. Increased
  5. plantar force and impulse in American football players with
  6. high arch compared to normal arch. The Foot. 2012;22(4):310-4.
  7. Queen RM, Mall NA, Nunley JA, Chuckpaiwong B. Differences
  8. in plantar loading between flat and normal feet during different
  9. athletic tasks. Gait & posture. 2009;29(4):582-6.
  10. Chang H-W, Chieh H-F, Lin C-J, Su F-C, Tsai M-J. The
  11. relationships between foot arch volumes and dynamic plantar
  12. pressure during midstance of walking in preschool children.
  13. PloS one. 2014;9(4):e94535.
  14. Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize
  15. the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity.
  16. Physical Therapy 2000;80(September (9)):864–71.
  17. Powell DW, Long B, Milner CE, Zhang S. Frontal plane multisegment
  18. foot kinematics in high- and low-arched females
  19. during dynamic loading tasks. Human Movement Science
  20. ;30(February (1)):105–14.
  21. Zhou Y, Zhou B, Liu J, Tan X, Tao X, Chen W, et al. A prospective
  22. study of midfoot osteotomy combined with adjacent joint sparing
  23. internal fixation in treatment of rigid pes cavus deformity. Journal
  24. of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2014;9(1):44.
  25. Desai SN, Grierson R, Manoli A. The cavus foot in athletes:
  26. fundamentals of examination and treatment. Operative Techniques
  27. in Sports Medicine. 2010;18(1):27-33.
  28. Hong Y, Wang SJ, Lam WK, Cheung JT-M. Kinetics of badminton
  29. lunges in four directions. Journal of applied biomechanics.
  30. ;30(1):113-8.
  31. Eils E, Streyl M, Linnenbecker S, Thorwesten L, Volker K,
  32. Rosenbaum D. Characteristic plantar pressure distribution
  33. patterns during soccer-specific movements. Am J Sports Med
  34. ;32(1):140–5.
  35. Wong PL, Chamari K, Mao DW, Wisloff U. Higher plantar
  36. pressure on the medial side in four soccer-related movements.
  37. Br J Sports Med 2007;41: 93–100.
  38. Queen R, Haynes B, Hardaker W, Garrett W. Forefoot loading
  39. during 3 athletic tasks. Am J Sports Med 2007;25(4):630–6.
  40. Sallis RE, Jones K, Sunshine S, Smith G, Simon L. Comparing
  41. sports injuries in men and women. Int J Sports Med
  42. ;22(6):420–3.
  43. Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, Conaghan PG,
  44. Tennant A. The foot posture index: Rasch analysis of a
  45. novel, foot-specific outcome measure. Archives of Physical
  46. Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2007; 88(1):88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.
  47. apmr.2006.10.005.
  48. Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams
  49. MT. Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures
  50. of foot position. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical
  51. Association. 2003;93(3):203-13.
  52. Redmond AC. Foot posture in neuromuscular disease:
  53. development and evaluation of a novel method for quantifying
  54. Bazipoor P et al.
  55. JRSR. 2017;4(1) 25
  56. change in foot posture using Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease as a
  57. clinical model. 2004.
  58. Yates B, White S. The incidence and risk factors in the development
  59. of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. The
  60. American journal of sports medicine. 2004;32(3):772-80.
  61. Burns J, Keenan A-M, Redmond A. Foot type and overuse
  62. injury in triathletes. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical
  63. Association. 2005;95(3):235-41.
  64. Terada M, Wittwer AM, Gribble PA. Intra-rater and inter-rater
  65. reliability of the five image-based criteria of the foot posture index-
  66. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2014;9(2):187.
  67. Burns J, Keenan AM, Redmond A. Foot type and overuse
  68. injury in triathletes. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical
  69. Association. 2005; 95(3):235–41. doi: 10.7547/0950235.
  70. Habibi Tirtashi F, Eslami M, Tazike Lamaski Z, Hoseinzade
  71. E. [The effect of feet arch on compressive and shear forces of
  72. ankle joint in gait initiation (Persian)]. Journal of Sport Medicine.
  73. ; 5(2):39-51.
  74. Kaufman KR, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA, Johnson CW, Cullison TR.
  75. The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal
  76. overuse injuries.AmJ Sports Med 1999;27(5):585–93.
  77. Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J. Arch structure and injury
  78. patterns in runners. Clin Biomechanics 2001;16(4):341–7.
  79. Sneyers CJ, Lysens R, Feys H, Andries R. Influence of
  80. malalignment of feet in the plantar pressure pattern in running.
  81. Foot Ankle Int 1995;16(10):624–32.
  82. Ledoux WR, Hillstrom H. The distributed plantar vertical force
  83. of neutrally aligned and pes planus feet. Gait Posture 2002;15:1–9.
  84. Dixon SJ, Waterworth C, Smith CV, House CM. Biomechanical
  85. analysis of running in military boots with new and degraded
  86. insoles. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(3):472-479.
  87. Lafortune MA, Hennig EM. Cushioning properties of footwear
  88. during walking: accelerometer and force platform measurements.
  89. Clin Biomech. 1992;7(3):181-184.
  90. Bowyer GW. Adult Foot and Ankle Problems. InnovAiT: The
  91. RCGP Journal for Associates in Training. 2010;3(11):657-670.
  92. Hensley LD, Paup DC. A survey of badminton injuries. Br J
  93. Sports Med. 1979;13(4):156- 160.
  94. Kroner K, Schmidt SA, Nielsen AB, et al. Badminton injuries.
  95. Br J Sports Med. 1990;24(3):169-172.
  96. Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J. Arch structure and injury
  97. patterns in runners. Clin Biomechanics 2001;16(4):341–7.
  98. Cavanagh PR, Hewitt FG, Perry JE. In-shoe plantar pressure
  99. measurement: a review. Foot 1992;2:185–94.
  100. Wiegerinck JI, Boyd J, Yoder JC, Abbey AN, Nunley JA, Queen
  101. RM. Differences in plantar loading between training shoes and
  102. racing flats at a self-selected running speed. Gait & Posture. 2009;
  103. (3):514–9. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost. 2008.12.001.
  104. Wegener C, Burns J, Penkala S. Effect of neutral-cushioned
  105. running shoes on plantar pressure loading and comfort in athletes
  106. with cavus feet: A crossover randomized controlled trial. The
  107. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2008; 36(11):2139–46.
Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research
Volume 4, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
20
March 2017
Pages 20-25
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics