UNASSIGNED: Many foot pathologies have been associated with foot type. However, the association of first ray hypermobility remains enigmatic. The purpose of this study was to investigate first ray hypermobility among participants with planus and rectus foot types and its influence on static measures of foot structure.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty asymptomatic participants with planus (n = 23 feet) and rectus (n = 17 feet) foot types were enrolled. Several parameters of static foot structure (arch height index, arch height flexibility, first metatarsophalangeal joint flexibility, and first ray mobility) were measured. Participants were further stratified into groups with nonhypermobile (n = 26 feet) and hypermobile (n = 14 feet) first rays. First ray mobility ≥8 mm was used to define \"first ray hypermobility\". Generalized estimating equations, best-fit regression lines, and stepwise linear regression were used to identify significant differences and predictors between the study variables.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, 86% of subjects categorized with first ray hypermobility exhibited a planus foot type. Arch height flexibility, weightbearing first ray mobility, and first metatarsophalangeal joint flexibility showed no significant between-group differences. However, weightbearing ray mobility and first metatarsophalangeal joint laxity were associated with partial weightbearing first ray mobility, accounting for 38% of the model variance.
UNASSIGNED: The planus foot type was found to be associated with first ray hypermobility. Furthermore, weightbearing first ray mobility and first metatarsophalangeal joint laxity were predictive of partial weightbearing first ray mobility, demonstrating an interaction between the translation and rotational mechanics of the first ray.
UNASSIGNED: Association of first ray hypermobility with foot type and first metatarsophalangeal joint flexibility may help understand the sequela to symptomatic pathologies of the foot.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders, especially in the feet, are common in people with Down syndrome (DS). Evaluation of podiatric footprints is important to prevent and manage orthopedic symptoms. The reliability of a wide variety of footprint measurement methods has been evaluated in healthy people, but few studies have considered the specific morphotype features of the feet in subjects with DS. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the podometric measurement tools used to typologically classify the footprints in the population with DS.
METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched for studies describing footprint measurement tools to assess and classify the foot types in patients with DS published from inception to December 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus. Articles were initially searched by screening titles and abstracts. Potentially relevant studies were then further screened by reviewing full texts. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review.
RESULTS: Of the 122 articles identified by the search strategy, 14 full texts were retained to assess for eligibility, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. All the studies used footprint measurement methods to classify the foot types in subjects with DS, but only two studies assessed the reliability of those methods for the population with DS. The footprint measurement tools identified were a podoscope, a pressure-sensitive mat, a PressureStatTM carbon paper, and a 3D scanner. The Arch Index was the most common footprint measurement analyzed (seven studies). Two studies used the \"gold standard\" indexes that include Hernández-Corvo Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Staheli Index, and Clarke Angle to measure footprints.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to determine the reliability and validity of the footprint measurement methods used for clinical classification of the foot types in subjects with DS. This can contribute to an early diagnosis of foot abnormalities that would help to reduce mobility impairments, improving the quality of life of patients with DS.

BACKGROUND: Arch height is one important aspect of foot posture. An estimated 20% of the population has pes planus and 20% has pes cavus. These abnormal foot postures can alter lower extremity kinematics and plantar loading and contribute to injury risk. Ankle bracing is commonly used in sport to prevent these injuries, but no researchers have examined the effects of ankle bracing on plantar loading.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of ankle braces on plantar loading during athletic tasks.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Laboratory.
METHODS: A total of 36 participants (11 men, 25 women; age = 23.1 ± 2.5 years, height = 1.72 ± 0.09 m, mass = 66.3 ± 14.7 kg) were recruited for this study.
METHODS: Participants completed walking, running, and cutting tasks in 3 bracing conditions: no brace, lace-up ankle-support brace, and semirigid brace.
METHODS: We analyzed the plantar-loading variables of contact area, maximum force, and force-time integral for 2 midfoot and 3 forefoot regions and assessed the displacement of the center of pressure. A 3 × 3 mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to determine the effects of brace and foot type (α = .05).
RESULTS: Foot type affected force measures in the middle (P range = .003-.047) and the medial side of the foot (P range = .004-.04) in all tasks. Brace type affected contact area in the medial midfoot during walking (P = .005) and cutting (P = .01) tasks, maximum force in the medial and lateral midfoot during all tasks (P < .001), and force-time integral in the medial midfoot during all tasks (P < .001). Portions of the center-of-pressure displacement were affected by brace wear in both the medial-lateral and anterior-posterior directions (P range = .001-.049).
CONCLUSIONS: Ankle braces can be worn to redistribute plantar loading. Additional research should be done to evaluate their effectiveness in injury prevention.

Research investigating differences in gluteus medius muscle activity in those with and without chronic nonspecific low back pain is both limited and conflicting. Additionally, in these populations the relationship between gluteus medius muscle activity, foot type, and transversus abdominis muscle thickness is unclear.
We aimed to investigate gluteus medius muscle activity during gait in those with and without chronic nonspecific low back pain. Secondarily, we aimed to explore the association between gluteus medius muscle activity, foot type, and transversus abdominis muscle thickness within groups.
This case control study recruited 30 people with and 30 people without chronic nonspecific low back pain and matched participants by age (±5 years), sex, and body mass index (±2 BMI units). Gluteus medius muscle activity was measured with surface electromyography during walking gait, with foot type and transversus abdominis muscle thickness measured with the Foot Posture Index and ultrasound respectively. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to investigate differences in gluteus medius muscle activity between groups. Spearman rank order correlation was performed to explore the association between gluteus medius muscle activity, foot type, and transversus abdominis thickness within each group. A linear regression was used to analyse significant correlations (P < 0.05).
We found no significant differences in gluteus medius muscle activity between groups. However, there was a moderate correlation between the Foot Posture Index score and gluteus medius peak amplitude (P = 0.04) for those with mild to moderate chronic nonspecific low back pain.
Clinicians should be aware that patients with mild to moderate chronic nonspecific low back pain may not demonstrate significant differences in gluteus medius muscle activity compared to those without back pain. Additionally, higher peak gluteus medius muscle activity is likely to occur in people with mild to moderate chronic nonspecific low back pain and planus feet.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal gluteus medius muscle activity is associated with a number of musculoskeletal conditions. Research investigating the effect of foot type and foot orthoses on gluteus medius muscle activity is both conflicting and limited. The primary aim was to investigate the relationship between foot type and gluteus medius muscle activity during shod walking. The secondary aims of this study were to explore the effect and amount of usage of a pair of unmodified prefabricated foot orthoses on gluteus medius muscle activity during shod walking.
METHODS: Foot type was determined using the foot posture index and gluteus medius muscle activity was measured with surface electromyography in 50 healthy adults during shod walking. Participants were then fitted with prefabricated foot orthoses and required to return after 4 weeks. Pearson\'s correlation and one-way ANOVA were used to determine effect of foot type. Paired t-tests and ANCOVA were used to determine effect of foot orthoses.
RESULTS: Participants with a cavus foot type demonstrated significantly more gluteus medius mean (p = 0.04) and peak amplitude (p = 0.01), and a greater range in amplitude (p = 0.01) compared to participants with a neutral foot type. Compared to a planus foot type, participants with a cavus foot type demonstrated significantly larger mean (p = 0.02) and peak amplitude (p = 0.01), and a greater range in amplitude (p = 0.01). Prefabricated foot orthoses did not change the gluteus medius muscle activity.
CONCLUSIONS: When assessing healthy adults with a cavus foot type, clinicians and researchers should be aware that these participants may display higher levels of gluteus medius muscle activity during gait compared to neutral and planus type feet. Additionally, clinicians and researchers should be aware that the type of prefabricated foot orthoses used did not change gluteus medius muscle activity over 4 weeks. Future research should aim to explore this relationship between foot type and gluteus medius muscle activity in larger sample sizes, consider the potential role of other lower extremity muscles and biomechanical variables, and investigate if these findings also occur in people with pathology.

UNASSIGNED: In-growing toenails commonly affect young men hampering the quality of life. There are many methods to treat in-growing toe nail but most of them have high recurrence rates and poor patient satisfaction. We describe our results of segmental matrix excision for correction of ingrowing toe nails.
UNASSIGNED: It is a retrospective study over a period of 2 years. Patients with symptomatic in-growing toe nails with stage II and III were operated by technique of segmental matrix excision. All patients were available for follow-up at ∼1 year.
UNASSIGNED: 90 patients, 59 males and 31females with ingrowing nail of great toe (108 toes and 120 surgical sites) that underwent correction of by segmental matrix excision. Patient\'s age ranged from 19 to 59 years. There was involvement of right great toe in 42 patients, left great toe in 30 patients and bilateral toes in 18 patients. 12 great toes were affected on both sides (74 lateral sides and 46 medial sides of toes). 15/90 (16.6%) patients had history of previous failed surgery by nail plate avulsion. Complications include bleeding (n = 1), infection (n = 2). On average follow up of ∼1 year, there was only 1 recurrence. There was no loss of cutaneous innervation or osteomyelitis. All patients went back to their normal activity on 10th day.
UNASSIGNED: Segmental matrix excision should be considered as the treatment of choice for ingrowing toe nail because of high cure rate, less pain, low risk of postoperative infection, and results in good cosmetic result.

Poor postural stability is associated with chronic ankle instability. Previous research showed an effect of foot type on postural stability. However, the specific effect of supinated feet remains unclear.
Our study aimed to assess the effect of foot type on postural stability, while taking potential confounding effects of body mass and body height into account.
Forty-three healthy participants between 18 and 40 years old performed barefooted single leg stance tests with eyes open (EO) and closed (EC) on solid ground, and on a balance board (BB). Foot type was determined from pressure recordings during gait, using the arch index. Ground reaction forces were measured using a force plate. Outcome measures were Center of Pressure Velocity (COPV) divided by body height, and the Horizontal Ground Reaction Force (HGRF) divided by body mass. Generalized Estimating Equations models assessed the differences between supinated, normal and pronated feet during EO, EC and on a BB.
During EO an interaction between supinated feet and body mass showed an increase of COPV with 0.03 × 10-2 1/s per kilogram of mass relative to normal feet (p = .03). During EC this interaction was more pronounced with 0.22 × 10-2 1/s increase per kilogram mass (p < .01). The HGRF did not differ between foot types in any of the conditions.
Supinated feet have a larger increase in COPV compared to normal feet with increasing mass when standing on solid ground during EO and EC. This indicates that people with supinated feet and a higher mass are less stable during single leg stance.
Level 3, associative study.

The presence of multiple foot types has been used to explain the variability of foot structure observed among healthy adults. These foot types were determined by specific static morphologic features and included rectus (well aligned hindfoot/forefoot), planus (low arched), and cavus (high arched) foot types. Unique biomechanical characteristics of these foot types have been identified but reported differences in segmental foot kinematics among them has been inconsistent due to differences in neutral referencing and evaluation of only select discrete variables. This study used the radiographically-indexed Milwaukee Foot Model to evaluate differences in segmental foot kinematics among healthy adults with rectus, planus, and cavus feet based on the true bony alignment between segments. Based on the definitions of the individual foot types and due to conflicting results in previous literature, the primary study outcome was peak coronal hindfoot position during stance phase. Additionally, locally weighted regression smoothing with alpha-adjusted serial t-test analysis (LAAST) was used to compare these foot types across the entire gait cycle. Average peak hindfoot inversion was -1.6° ± 5.1°, 6.7° ± 3.5°, and 13.6° ± 4.6°, for the Planus, Rectus, and Cavus Groups, respectively. There were significant differences among all comparisons. Differences were observed between the Rectus and Planus Groups and Cavus and Planus Groups throughout the gait cycle. Additionally, the Planus Group had a premature peak velocity toward coronal varus and early transition toward valgus, likely due to a deficient windlass mechanism. This assessment of kinematic data across the gait cycle can help understand differences in dynamic foot function among foot types.

Few studies reporting long-term results of surgical treatment of hallux rigidus have been published. The aim of this study is to assess the clinical outcome of Valenti procedures in a series of patients with hallux limitus/rigidus with a minimum 10-year follow-up time. We retrospectively evaluated 38 patients (40 feet) who underwent a Valenti procedure with a mean follow-up of 132 ± 19.6 (range 114 to 184) months. All patients were clinically reassessed on the basis of the evaluation of pain (visual analogue scale), function (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Hallux Metatarsophalangeal-Interphalangeal Scale Assessment and Foot & Ankle Disability Index), and subjective satisfaction. The scores before and after treatment, obtained from clinical recordings and clinical evaluation during the last follow-up visits, were compared. We found significant improvement of the mean values of the visual analogue score (p < .0001), Foot & Ankle Disability Index (p < .0001), and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Hallux Metatarsophalangeal-Interphalangeal Scale Assessment (p < .0001) during the latest follow-up visits. The results suggest that the Valenti technique represents a safe, reproducible surgical procedure that allows satisfying long-term results. The few reported complications were essentially the progressive worsening of the joint stiffness, but no sesamoiditis, metatarsal overload, secondary surgeries, or failures were documented.

BACKGROUND: Prefabricated foot orthoses are used to treat chronic nonspecific low back pain, however their effectiveness and potential mechanism of action is unclear. The primary aims of the study are to investigate the effectiveness of prefabricated foot orthotic devices for reducing pain and improving function in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain over 52 weeks.
METHODS: This study is a participant and assessor blinded, parallel-group, superiority randomised (1:1) controlled trial. The study will recruit 60 participants aged 18 to 65 years with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Participants will undergo randomisation to a control group (The Back Book) or an intervention group (prefabricated foot orthoses and The Back Book). The primary outcome measures will be change in pain and function from baseline to 12 (primary time point), 26, and 52 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include: gluteus medius muscle activity and transversus abdominis muscle thickness from baseline to 12 weeks, physical activity over 12, 26, and 52 weeks, and correlation between foot type and change in measures of pain and function. Number of hours per day and week that the prefabricated orthoses are worn, as well as, adverse events will be self-reported by participants. Data will be analysed using the intention-to-treat principle.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial will primarily evaluate the effectiveness of prefabricated foot orthotic devices for reducing pain and improving function in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain over 52 weeks. It is expected that this study will provide clinicians and researchers with an understanding of the role that prefabricated foot orthoses may have in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain and a potential mechanism of action, and whether foot type influences the outcome.
BACKGROUND: ACTRN12618001298202.