Comparison of the Functional Lower Extremity Evaluation Scores in Active and Inactive Male Teenagers with Normal and Pes Cavus Foot

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 MSc, School of Sport Corrective Exercise, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Biomechanic and Sport Injury, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aims: Muscular imbalance followed by musculoskeletal abnormality may result in weakness in athletic functions and ultimately lead to injury and reduce the level of health and ability of individuals to perform sports activities. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effect of pes cavus foot abnormality on functional lower extremity evaluation scores in active and inactive maleteenagers in two groups of normal andpes cavus foot.
Materials and Methods: In the present study, 80 students aged 13-15 (in active and inactive groups, 20 with normal foot and 20 with pes cavus foot) were recruited. To determine the pes cavus foot, navicular drooping technique and to evaluate the function of the lower extremity, the functional lower extremity evaluation,including the control sequence, hop test sequence, and endurance sequence, were used. For data analysis, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and T-test were used (p <0.05).
Results: The results of the present study showed that there were significant differences between the two groups of normal andpes cavus foot in active and inactive male teenagers in all functional tests of the lower extremity (p <0.05). Comparison of Functional Lower Extremity Evaluationrevealed that pes cavus foot group had weaker scores compared with the normal foot.
Conclusion: According to our results, pes cavus foot abnormality leads to weakness in the performance of Functional Lower Extremity Evaluationas well as athletic activities and competitions. So, iIndividuals with pes cavus foot abnormality, regardless of being active or inactive, scored lower than those with normal foot on the Functional Lower Extremity Evaluation. Therefore, pes cavus foot abnormality is one of the most important risk factors and reasons for poor performance in exercise.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. LetafatKar KH , Bakhsheshi Haris M , S. G. Corrective exercises and Therapy: Bamdad Ketab; 2009. 142-50 p.[In Persian]##
2. Franco AH. Pes cavus and pes planus. Analyses and treatment. Physical therapy. 1987;67(5):688-94 ##
3. Buldt AK, Murley GS, Butterworth P, Levinger P, Menz HB, Landorf KB. The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: A systematic review. Gait Posture. 2013;38(3):363-72 ##
4. Kaufman KR, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA, Johnson CW, Cullison TR. The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. The American journal of sports medicine. 1999;27(5):585-93 ##
5. Barati K, Saeedi H, Hajiaghaei B, Jalali M, Curran S. The effect of hydrodynamic insole on foot kinematics in individuals with flexible flatfoot: Case series using a single-subject design. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2019;233(4):407-13. ##
6. Brody DM. Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. The Orthopedic clinics of North America. 1982;13(3):541-58. ##
7. Burns J, Crosbie J. Weight bearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion in idiopathic pes cavus compared to normal and pes planus feet. The Foot. 2005;15(2):91-4 ##
8. Carson DW, Myer GD, Hewett TE, Heidt RS, Jr., Ford KR. Increased plantar force and impulse in American football players with high arch compared to normal arch. Foot (Edinb). 2012;22(4):310-4##
9. Moisan G, Descarreaux M, Cantin V. Muscle activation during fast walking with two types of foot orthoses in participants with cavus feet. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2018;43:7-13 ##
10. Atamturk D. [Relationship of flatfoot and high arch with main anthropometric variables]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2009;43(3):254-9 ##
11. Powell DW, Long B, Milner CE, Zhang S. Frontal plane multi-segment foot kinematics in high- and low-arched females during dynamic loading tasks. Hum Mov Sci. 2011;30(1):105-14. ##
12. Iman Kheyrandish, Malihe Hadadnezhad, Shogaedin SS. Comparison of Functional Lower Extremity Evaluation Scores in Active Adolescents with Normal and Flexible Flat Foot. J Rehab Med. 2019;4. [In Persian] ##
13. Derksen-Lubsen G, Jambroes M, Essink-Bot ML. [Healthcare for teenagers: are we working together?]. Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde. 2016;160:D783 ##
14. Neely FG. Biomechanical risk factors for exercise-related lower limb injuries. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 1998;26(6):395-413 ##
15. hamide kh, mehrdad A, Nader F. The Effect of Structural Abnormalities of Flat and pes cauvs foot on Dynamic Balance in Adolescent Girls. Journal of Research in Sport Sciences. 2009;23 [In Persian] ##
16. Kaufman KR, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA, Johnson CW, Cullison TR. The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. The American journal of sports medicine. 1999;27(5):585-93. ##
17. Zuil-Escobar JC, Martinez-Cepa CB, Martin-Urrialde JA, Gomez-Conesa A. Medial Longitudinal Arch: Accuracy, Reliability, and Correlation Between Navicular Drop Test and Footprint Parameters. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2018;41(8):672-9. ##
18. Smith J, Szczerba JE, Arnold BL, Perrin DH, Martin DE. Role of hyperpronation as a possible risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Journal of athletic training. 1997;32(1):25-8 ##
19. Haitz K, Shultz R, Hodgins M, Matheson GO. Test-retest and interrater reliability of the functional lower extremity evaluation. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2014;44(12):947-54 ##
20. Noyes FR, Barber SD, Mangine RE. Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. The American journal of sports medicine. 1991;19(5):513-8. ##
21. Caffrey E, Docherty CL, Schrader J, Klossner J. The ability of 4 single-limb hopping tests to detect functional performance deficits in individuals with functional ankle instability. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2009;39(11):799-806 ##
22. Brumitt J, Heiderscheit BC, Manske RC, Niemuth PE, Rauh MJ. Lower extremity functional tests and risk of injury in division iii collegiate athletes. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2013;8(3):216-27 ##
23. Wong CK, Gidali A, Harris V. Deformity or dysfunction? Osteopathic manipulation of the idiopathic cavus foot: A clinical suggestion. North American journal of sports physical therapy : NAJSPT. 2010;5(1):27-32. ##
24. Burns J, Redmond A, Ouvrier R, Crosbie J. Quantification of muscle strength and imbalance in neurogenic pes cavus, compared to health controls, using hand-held dynamometry. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(7):540-4 ##
25. Aminian A, Sangeorzan BJ. The anatomy of cavus foot deformity. Foot Ankle Clin. 2008;13(2):191-8, v. ##
26. Sinclair C, Svantesson U, Sjostrom R, Alricsson M. Differences in Pes Planus and Pes Cavus subtalar eversion/inversion before and after prolonged running, using a two-dimensional digital analysis. J Exerc Rehabil. 2017;13(2):232-9. ##
27. Korpelainen R, Orava S, Karpakka J, Siira P, Hulkko A. Risk factors for recurrent stress fractures in athletes. The American journal of sports medicine. 2001;29(3):304-10 ##
28. Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, Ouvrier R. The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(9):877-82 ##
29. Telfer S, Kindig MW, Sangeorzan BJ, Ledoux WR. Metatarsal Shape and Foot Type: A Geometric Morphometric Analysis. J Biomech Eng. 2017;139(3) ##
30. Buldt AK, Forghany S, Landorf KB, Levinger P, Murley GS, Menz HB. Foot posture is associated with plantar pressure during gait: A comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. Gait Posture. 2018;40-62;235##
31. Deforth M, Zwicky L, Horn T, Hintermann B. The effect of foot type on the Achilles tendon moment arm and biomechanics. Foot (Edinb). 2019;38:91-44. ##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 9, Issue 4
January 2021
Pages 152-162

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 May 2019
  • Revise Date: 06 March 2020
  • Accept Date: 19 March 2020
  • First Publish Date: 21 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics