Abstract
Background. Although previous studies have generally reported increased plantar pressure values
with obesity, none of these studies has classified the obesity. Our aim in this study
was to compare the plantar pressure distribution in obese and control adults during
standing and walking.
Methods. This study was performed on 100 feet of 50 study participants. The subjects gathered
in two groups, each containing 25 study participants, as non-obese and class 1 obese
according to their body mass index values. Static and dynamic pedobarographic evaluations
were performed during standing and walking. The findings were compared between the
groups and also the correlation of body mass index with the pedobarographic parameters
was assessed.
Findings. The static pedobarographic evaluation revealed significantly higher values in terms
of forefoot peak pressure, total plantar force and total contact area in the feet
of class 1 obese subjects when only middle foot peak pressure was found to be higher
in class 1 obese subjects than controls as a dynamic pedobarographic parameter. Among
the static parameters body mass index was found to have positive correlation with
total plantar force (r = 0.50, P = 0.000) and total contact area (r = 0.33, P = 0.019). Only middle foot peak pressure (r = 0.32, P = 0.025) among the dynamic pedobarographic parameters had positive correlation with
body mass index.
Interpretation. This study may be a first step to evaluate the effect of different obesity categories
on the plantar pressure values. Further studies are needed to investigate the effect
of different obesity grades.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical BiomechanicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Does obesity influence foot structure and plantar pressure patterns in prepubescent children?.Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2001; 25: 845-852
- Effect of weight load and carrying conditions on plantar peak.Orthopade. 2003; 32: 207-212
- Comparison of ground reaction forces between obese and control young adults during quiet standing on a baropodometric platform.Clin. Biomech. 2003; 18: 780-782
- The tripod support of the foot distribution under static and dynamic loading.Z. Orthop. Ihre Grenzgeb. 1993; 131: 279-284
- Plantar pressure distribution patterns of young school children in comparison adults.Foot Ankle. 1994; 15: 35-40
- Plantar pressure differences between obese and non-obese adults: a biomechanical analysis.Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2001; 25: 1674-1679
- The biomechanics of adiposity—structural and functional limitations of obesity and implications for movement.Obes. Rev. 2002; 3: 35-43
- Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes.Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15: 349-353
- Assessment of the obese patient.Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. North Am. 2003; 32: 915-933
- Can we identify a ‘high risk’ patient profile to determine who will experience rapid progression of osteoarthritis?.Osteoarthr. Cartilage. 2004; 12: S49-S52
- The adaptation of the foot to heavy loads: plantar foot pressures study.Clin. Biomech. 1997; 12: 8
- Epidemiologic trends in overweight and obesity.Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. North Am. 2003; 32: 741-760
Operating Manual Mini-Emed System, 1991. Novel, Munich
- Obesity.Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. North Am. 2003; 32: xiii-xiv
- Does obesity influence foot structure in prepubescent children?.Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2000; 24: 541-544
- The effect of increased weight on peak pressures: implications for obesity and diabetic foot pathology.J. Foot Ankle Surg. 1998; 37 (448–449): 416-420
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 21, 2004
Accepted:
July 8,
2004
Received in revised form:
July 4,
2004
Received:
March 25,
2004
Identification
Copyright
© 2004 Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
