Quaney B, Meyer K, Cornwall M W, McPoil T G
Department of Physical Therapy, Overland Park Regional Medical Center, Kansas, USA.
Foot Ankle Int. 1995 Sep;16(9):562-6. doi: 10.1177/107110079501600909.
The purpose of this study was to compare the peak pressure and peak force values obtained from two pressure assessment systems, the Dynamic Pedobarograph and the EMED SF. Twenty-one individuals with a mean age of 31.6 years walked barefoot over both systems using a two-step data collection protocol. Peak plantar pressures and peak vertical force values were measured under the heel, central forefoot, hallux, and entire foot for both systems. The results of this study demonstrated that the EMED SF system produced larger peak pressures under the central forefoot and hallux. The Pedobarograph, on the other hand, produced greater pressures under the heel and entire foot. With respect to peak vertical forces, the Pedobarograph showed significantly greater values under the heel and central forefoot compared with the EMED SF, but were significantly lower under the hallux and entire foot.
本研究的目的是比较两种压力评估系统——动态足底压力分析仪和EMED SF所获得的峰值压力和峰值力值。21名平均年龄为31.6岁的个体采用两步数据收集方案，赤脚在这两种系统上行走。在两种系统中，分别测量了足跟、前脚掌中部、拇趾和整个足部的足底峰值压力和垂直峰值力值。本研究结果表明，EMED SF系统在前脚掌中部和拇趾下方产生的峰值压力更大。另一方面，足底压力分析仪在足跟和整个足部下方产生的压力更大。关于垂直峰值力，与EMED SF相比，足底压力分析仪在足跟和前脚掌中部下方显示出明显更大的值，但在拇趾和整个足部下方则明显更低。
