Motion Analysis and Biofeedback Laboratory, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Graduate Programs in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
J Foot Ankle Res. 2021 Oct 6;14(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13047-021-00493-5.
Lateral wedge insoles (LWI), standalone or with medial arch support (supported-LWI), have been thoroughly investigated for their effects on modifying gait biomechanics for people with knee osteoarthritis. However, plantar pressure distribution between these insole types has not been investigated and could provide insight towards insole prescription with concomitant foot symptoms taken into consideration.
In a sample of healthy individuals (n = 40), in-shoe plantar pressure was measured during walking with LWI, with or without medial arch support (variable- and uniform-stiffness designs), and a flat control insole condition. Pressure data from the plantar surface of the foot were divided into seven regions: medial/lateral rearfoot, midfoot, medial/central/lateral forefoot, hallux. Plantar pressure outcomes assessed were the medial-lateral pressure index (MLPI) for the whole foot, and the peak pressure, pressure-time integral (PTI), and contact area in each plantar region. Comfort in each insole condition was rated as a change relative to the flat control insole condition. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were calculated to compare the plantar pressure outcomes between insole conditions.
Regionally, medial rearfoot and forefoot pressure were reduced by all wedged insoles, with the variable-stiffness supported-wedge showing greater reductions than the standalone wedge. Lateral rearfoot and forefoot pressure were reduced by both supported-LWI, but unchanged by the standalone wedge. In the midfoot, the standalone wedge maintained pressure but reduced regional contact area, while both supported-LWI increased midfoot pressure and contact area. All LWI increased the MLPI, indicating a lateral shift in plantar pressure distribution throughout the weightbearing phase of gait. Comfort ratings were not significantly different between insole conditions.
Regional differences in plantar pressure may help determine an appropriate lateral wedge insole variation to avoid exacerbation of concomitant foot symptoms by minimizing pressure in symptomatic regions. Lateral shifts in plantar pressure distribution were observed in all laterally wedged conditions, including one supported-LWI that was previously shown to be biomechanically ineffective for modifying knee joint load distribution. Thus, shifts in foot centre of pressure may not be a primary mechanism by which LWI can modify knee joint load distribution for people with knee osteoarthritis.
外侧楔形鞋垫(LWI),无论是独立使用还是与内侧足弓支撑(支撑式 LWI)联合使用,都已被深入研究,以观察其对膝骨关节炎患者步态生物力学的影响。然而,这些鞋垫类型之间的足底压力分布尚未得到研究,考虑到伴随的足部症状,这可能为鞋垫处方提供一些见解。
在一组健康个体(n=40)中,在穿着 LWI、带或不带内侧足弓支撑(可变和均匀刚度设计)以及平底控制鞋垫的情况下,测量行走时的鞋内足底压力。足底表面的压力数据分为七个区域:内侧/外侧足跟、中足、内侧/中央/外侧前足、大脚趾。评估的足底压力结果包括整个足部的内侧-外侧压力指数(MLPI),以及每个足底区域的峰值压力、压力-时间积分(PTI)和接触面积。每种鞋垫条件下的舒适度都根据与平底控制鞋垫条件的差异进行评分。使用重复测量方差分析比较不同鞋垫条件下的足底压力结果。
从区域上看,所有楔形鞋垫都降低了内侧足跟和前足的压力,其中可变刚度支撑楔形鞋垫的降低幅度大于独立楔形鞋垫。支撑式 LWI 降低了外侧足跟和前足的压力,但独立楔形鞋垫没有改变。在中足,独立楔形鞋垫保持了压力但减少了区域接触面积,而两种支撑式 LWI 都增加了中足的压力和接触面积。所有 LWI 都增加了 MLPI,表明在步态的负重阶段,足底压力分布向外侧发生了转移。鞋垫条件之间的舒适度评分没有显著差异。
足底压力的区域差异可能有助于确定适当的外侧楔形鞋垫变化,以避免因减轻症状区域的压力而加重伴随的足部症状。在所有外侧楔形鞋垫的情况下都观察到了足底压力分布的外侧转移,包括一种先前被证明在改变膝关节负荷分布方面没有生物力学效果的支撑式 LWI。因此,足压中心的转移可能不是 LWI 改变膝骨关节炎患者膝关节负荷分布的主要机制。