Comparison of Plantar Pressure Distribution Patterns during Walking in Female Students Aged 12–14 Years with Flat and Normal Feet: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors
Hamed Fadaei 1
Raghad Mimar 2
Seyed Sadredin Shojaedin 3
Sina Najafpour 4
Hossein Sharifi 5
1 PhD Student, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Pathology, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Pathology, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Pathology, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Biomechanics and Sports Pathology, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
5 MSc Student, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Pathology, School of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
10.48305/jrrs.2026.46267.1140
Abstract
Introduction: Flexible flatfoot is one of the most common musculoskeletal abnormalities during adolescence. It can affect the biomechanical function of the lower extremity by altering plantar pressure distribution, potentially increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. Given these factors, the objective of this study was to compare the plantar pressure distribution during walking in adolescent girls with flexible flatfoot and their counterparts with normal foot arches.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 32 female students aged 12–14 years were divided into two equal groups of 16 (flexible flatfoot and normal foot). Peak plantar pressure and contact area were measured across 10 anatomical regions using the emed® C50 plantar pressure measurement system. The data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, and the Bonferroni correction was applied to control for errors arising from multiple comparisons.
Results: The flexible flatfoot group exhibited a significantly greater contact area in the medial midfoot region (M3) than the normal-arch group (P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.997). Although peak plantar pressure in the third to fifth metatarsal region (M7) was lower in the flexible flatfoot group than in the normal-arch group, this difference was no longer statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons (P = 0.009, Cohen's d = 0.988). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in the other plantar regions.
Conclusion: The increased contact area in the medial midfoot region may serve as a biomechanical indicator for the early identification of adolescents with flexible flatfoot. These results can inform preventive programs, orthotic designs, and rehabilitation protocols.
Keywords
Pressure distribution patterns
Flat foot
Female students
Walking
Subjects
1.     Queralt A, Valls-Solé J, Castellote JM. Speeding up gait initiation and gait-pattern with a startling stimulus. Gait Posture 2010; 31: 185–90.
2.     Putti AB, Arnold GP, Abboud RJ. Foot pressure differences in men and women. Foot Ankle Surg. 2010; 16(1): 21–4.
3.     Hsi WL, Chai HM, Lai JS. Comparison of pressure and time parameters in evaluating diabetic footwear. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 81(11): 822–9.
4.     Koreili Z, Fatahi A, Azarbaijany MA, Sharifnezhad A. Symmetry of Plantar Pressure Distribution and Center of Pressure Excursion Index in Active Female Adolescents with Foot Pronation: Cross-Sectional Study. J Res Rehabil Sci. 2021; 17: 53-61.
5.     Heidari E, Tahmasbi T, Mojiri S. Investigating the Effect of Semi-Hard Medical Insoles Made with CAD-CAM Technology on Balance and Pressure Caused by Flexible Flatfoot in the Ages of 12 to 40 Years: Systematic Review. J Res Rehabil Sci. 2022; 18: 1-11.
6.     Napolitano C, Walsh S, Mahoney L, McCrea J. Risk factors that may adversely modify the natural history of the pediatric pronated foot. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2000; 17(3): 397-417.
7.     Ghazaleh L, Behnampoor M. Observational Study of Weight Distribution on the Feet and Moment Arm of the Ground Reaction Force around the Ankle in Standing Position in Women with Flatfoot. J Res Rehabil Sci. 2018; 14(5): 257-65.
8.     Patil M, Kulkarni MS, Sinha A, Ghorpade RR. Biomechanical variations in patients with flatfoot deformity: Impact of gender, age, and BMI on foot kinetics and kinematics. J Orthop. 2024; 57: 90-7.
9.     Ferrari J, Watkinson D. Foot pressure measurement differences between boys and girls with reference to hallux valgus deformity and hypermobility. Foot Ankle Int. 2005; 26(9): 739-47.
10.  Jeon W, Jensen JL, Griffin L. Muscle activity and balance control during sit-to-stand across symmetric and asymmetric initial foot positions in healthy adults. Gait Posture. 2019; 71: 138-44.
11.  Feyzioğlu Ö, Öztürk Ö, Muğrabi S. Is Morton's neuroma in a pes planus or pes cavus foot lead to differences in pressure distribution and gait parameters? Heliyon. 2023; 9(8): e19111.
12.  Rai DV, Aggarwal LM, Bahadur R. Plantar pressure changes in normal and pathological foot during bipedal standing. Indian
J Orthop 2006; 40(2): 119.
13.  Chen KC, Tung LC, Tung CH, Yeh CJ, Yang JF, Wang CH. An investigation of the factors affecting flatfoot in children with delayed motor development. Res Dev Disabil 2014; 35(3): 639-45.
14.  Farahpour N, Jafarnezhadgero A, Allard P, Majlesi M. Muscle activity and kinetics of lower limbs during walking in pronated feet individuals with and without low back pain. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2018; 39: 35-41.
15.  Stolwijk NM, Duysens J, Louwerens JW, Keijsers NL. Plantar pressure changes after long-distance walking. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42(12): 2264-72.
16.  Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture. 2002; 15(3): 282-91.
17.  Esmaeili H, Anbarian M, Hajiloo B, Sanjari MA. Short-term effect of medical insoles on electrical activity and co-contraction of leg muscles in people with flat feet. J Res Rehabil Sci. 2013; 9(2): 295-307.
18.  Jankowicz-Szymańska A, Kołpa M, Mikołajczyk E. The influence of excessive body mass on the setting of the lower limbs in 9-11-year-old children. Health Promot Phys Act. 2016; (1): 37-46.
19.  Putti AB, Arnold GP, Cochrane L, Abboud RJ. The Pedar in-shoe system: repeatability and normal pressure values. Gait Posture. 2007; 25(3): 401-5.
20.  Ramanathan AK, Kiran P, Arnold GP, Wang W, Abboud RJ. Repeatability of the Pedar-X in-shoe pressure measuring system. Foot Ankle Surg. 2010; 16(2): 70-3.
21.  Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2): 175–91.
22.  Benedetti MG, Ceccarelli F, Berti L, Luciani D, Catani F, Boschi M, et al. Diagnosis of flexible flatfoot in children:
A systematic clinical approach. Orthopedics. 2011; 34(2).
23.  Onodera AN, Sacco IC, Morioka EH, Souza PS, de Sa MR, Amadio AC. What is the best method for child longitudinal plantar arch assessment and when does arch maturation occur? Foot (Edinb) 2008; 18(3): 142-9.
24.  Hvidt JJ, Brix N, Ernst A, Lauridsen LLB, Ramlau-Hansen CH. Size at birth, infant growth, and age at pubertal development in boys and girls. Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 11: 873-83.
25.  Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35(8): 1381-95.
26.  Monteiro RL, Ferreira JSSP, Silva ÉQ, Donini A, Cruvinel-Júnior RH, et al. Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of a Foot-Ankle Exercise Program Aiming to Improve Foot-Ankle Functionality and Gait Biomechanics in People with Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Sensors. 2020; 20(18): 5129.
27.  Weon JH, Kim GS, Jung DY. Effect of Calcaneal Taping on Peak Plantar Pressure of Forefoot and Rearfoot during Gait.
J Korean Phys Ther. 2015; 27(6): 434–8.
28.  Jafarnezhadgero AA, Shad MM, Majlesi M. Effect of foot orthoses on the medial longitudinal arch in children with flexible flatfoot deformity: A three-dimensional moment analysis. Gait Posture. 2017; 55: 75–80.
29.  Gurney JK, Kersting UG, Rosenbaum D. Between-day reliability of repeated plantar pressure distribution measurements in a normal population. Gait Posture. 2008; 27(4): 706–9.
30.  Rodgers MM, Cavanagh PR. Pressure distribution in Morton’s foot structure. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1989; 21(1): 23–8.
31.  Najafpour S, Fadaei H, Adiguzeli H. Biomechanical Evaluation of Morton's Toe Effects on Plantar Pressure Distribution during Gait: A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 2025; 21(1).
32.  Esmaili H, et al. Comparison of plantar pressure distribution in flat foot and normal foot during gait. Iran J Rehabil Sci. 2020; 15(2): 120-30.
33.  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; 62: 235-40.
34.  Evans AM, Rome K. A Cochrane review of the evidence for non-surgical interventions for flexible pediatric flat feet. Eur
J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011; 47(1): 69-89.