↓ Skip to main content

An anatomically‐based masking protocol for the assessment of in‐shoe plantar pressure measurement of the forefoot

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An anatomically‐based masking protocol for the assessment of in‐shoe plantar pressure measurement of the forefoot
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13047-018-0271-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saeed Forghany, Daniel R. Bonanno, Hylton B. Menz, Karl B. Landorf

Abstract

The area beneath the metatarsal heads is a common location of foot pain, which is often associated with high plantar pressures. Current plantar pressure assessment protocols focus mainly on the gross area of the forefoot with minimal attention paid to specific areas such as the metatarsal heads. The aim of this study was to develop and assess a new anatomically-based masking protocol that is clinically relevant to measure forefoot plantar pressure during shod conditions based on the anatomical positions of the metatarsal heads. Initially, we developed a masking protocol to measure forefoot plantar pressure during shod conditions based on the anatomical positions of the metatarsal heads. This new masking protocol divided the forefoot into three sub-areas (proximal, beneath, and distal to the metatarsal heads) as determined by the position of each metatarsal head. Following development of the new masking protocol, we compared the new protocol against a traditional protocol, which defines the forefoot as between 51 and 81% of the foot length. To compare the two masking protocols, we tested two experimental conditions: (i) a control condition (i.e. no metatarsal pad), and (ii) a metatarsal pad condition. We then compared plantar pressure differences between the two experimental conditions for the two masking protocols. Participants for this component of the study included 36 community dwelling older adults (mean age 75.6 years ±5.4) with a history of forefoot pain. Forefoot plantar pressure data were measured while walking using the pedar®-X in-shoe system. Peak pressure, maximum force and contact area at the time of peak pressure were determined and results were compared between the two masking protocols. The traditional masking protocol showed that the metatarsal pad significantly decreased peak pressure and increased contact area in the forefoot area (i.e. within the entire mask area), but maximum force was not significantly different between the two conditions. In contrast, the newly developed anatomically-based masking protocol indicated that the metatarsal pad decreased peak plantar pressures distal to and beneath the metatarsal heads by increasing force and contact area proximal to the metatarsal heads. An anatomically-based masking protocol that is clinically relevant was developed to assess forefoot plantar pressure during shod conditions based on the anatomical positions of metatarsal heads. We propose that the new forefoot masking protocol will provide greater interpretability of forefoot plantar pressure data, which will aid clinicians and researchers for diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic purposes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Master 8 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 28 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Sports and Recreations 10 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Engineering 3 4%
Mathematics 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 35 47%