Düz ve yüksek tabanlığın temel antropometrik değişkenlerle ilişkisi

Amaç: Tüm yaşlarda yürüme bozukluklarına ve postürel sapmalara neden olan düz (pes planus) ve yüksek tabanlık (pes cavus) önemli bir sağlık sorunudur. Bu çalışmada, ye- tişkinlerde düz ve yüksek tabanlığın temel antropometrik göstergelerle nasıl bir ilişki gösterdiği araştırıldı. Çalışma planı: Araştırma, Ankara’da yaşayan ve yaşları 18-83 arasında değişen 516 katılımcı (253 erkek, 263 ka- dın) üzerinde gerçekleştirildi. Ortalama yaş erkeklerde 40.5±13.4, kadınlarda 43.3±14.9 idi. Bireyler yaşlarına göre 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 ve ≥60 olmak üzere beş gruba ayrıldı. Bireylerin düz veya yüksek tabanlı olup ol- madıkları ayak izlerinden yararlanılarak belirlendi. Araş- tırmaya katılan bireylerden toplam beş antropometrik ölçü alındı. Bunlar vücut ağırlığı, boy uzunluğu, ayak uzunlu- ğu, ayak tarak genişliği ve ayak topuk genişliği idi. Ayrıca, bireylerin ayakkabı numaraları öğrenildi ve her bir birey için beden kütle indeksi (BKİ) hesaplandı. Sonuçlar: İncelenen bireylerin 21’inde (%4.1) düztaban- lık, altısında (%1.2) ise yüksek tabanlık görüldü. Cinsiyet ve yaş grupları arasında iki deformitenin varlığı açısından anlamlı fark görülmedi (p>0.05). Ölçülen antropometrik verilerden boy uzunluğu, vücut ağırlığı, BKİ, ayak uzun- luğu, ayak tarak genişliği ve giyilen ayakkabı numarası ile düz ve yüksek tabanlık arasında anlamlı ilişki bulunmadı (p>0.05). Ayak topuk genişliği ise sadece düztabanlık ile anlamlı ilişki gösterdi (p=0.027). Çıkarımlar: Bu bulgular ışığında, yüksek tabanlığın vü- cut yapısıyla ve ayak boyutlarıyla ilişkili olmadığı, düz- tabanlığın ise yalnızca topuk genişliğiyle ilişkili olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Düztabanlık, Vücut boyu, Vücut kitle indeksi, Ayak, Görülme sıklığı, Sosyoekonomik faktörler, Ayak deformitesi

Relationship of ﬂatfoot and high arch with main anthropometric variables

Objectives: The deformities of ﬂatfoot (pes planus) and high arch (pes cavus) are serious health problems causing gait and postural defects in all age groups. The aim of this study was to seek relationships of these two deformities with main anthropometric variables in adults. Methods: This study was carried out in 516 community individuals (253 males, 263 females) aged between 18 to 83 years, living in Ankara, Turkey. The mean age was 40.5±13.4 in males, and 43.3±14.9 in females. The partici- pants were analyzed in ﬁve age brackets, namely 18-29, 30- 39, 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 years. The presence of ﬂatfoot or high arch was determined by the analysis of footprints. A total of ﬁve anthropometric variables were measured including body weight, body height, foot length, metatar- sal width, and heel width. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated and shoe size of the individuals was recorded, as well. Results: The incidences of ﬂatfoot and high arch were 4.1% (n=21) and 1.2% (n=6), respectively. There were no signiﬁcant differences between sex and age groups with respect to the frequency of both deformities (p>0.05). No associations were found between the presence of ﬂatfoot or high arch and body weight, body height, BMI, foot length, metatarsal width, and shoe size (p>0.05). Only heel width showed a signiﬁcant association with the presence of ﬂat- foot (p=0.027). Conclusion: These ﬁndings suggest that the presence of high arch is not related to body composition and foot dimensions, while ﬂatfoot is associated only with heel width.

Keywords:

Flatfoot, Body Height, Body Mass Index, Foot, Incidence, Socioeconomic Factors, Foot Deformities,

___

1. Benvenuti F, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Gangemi S, Baroni A. Foot pain and disability in older persons: an epidemiologic survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995;43:479-84.
2. Kohls-Gatzoulis J, Angel JC, Singh D, Haddad F, Living- stone J, Berry G. Tibialis posterior dysfunction: a common and treatable cause of adult acquired flatfoot. BMJ 2004;329:1328-33.
3. Lee MS, Vanore JV, Thomas JL, Catanzariti AR, Kogler G, Kravitz SR, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adult flatfoot. J Foot Ankle Surg 2005;44:78-113.
4. Mosca VS. Flexible flatfoot and skewfoot. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1995;77:1937-45.
5. Keysor JJ, Dunn JE, Link CL, Badlissi F, Felson DT. Are foot disorders associated with functional limitation and disability among community-dwelling older adults? J Aging Health 2005;17:734-52.
6. Rose GK, Welton EA, Marshall T. The diagnosis of flat foot in the child. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1985;67:71-8.
7. Weinstein SL. The pediatric foot. In: Weinstein SL, Buckwalter JA, editors. Turek’s orthopaedics: principles and their application. 5th ed. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company; 1994. p. 615-50.
8. Rao UB, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 2300 children. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1992;74:525-7.
9. Sachithanandam V, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 1846 skeletally mature persons. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1995;77:254-7.
10. Kanatlı U, Yetkin H, Cila E. Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop 2001;21:225-8.
11. Gordon CC, Chumlea WC, Roche AF. Stature, recumbent length, and weight. In: Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R, editors. Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books; 1988. p. 3-8.
12. Martin R, Saller K. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie (Band I). Stuttgart: Güstav Fischer Verlag; 1954. p. 338-339.
13. Atamtürk D, Duyar I. Age-related factors in the relationship between foot measurements and living stature and body weight. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:1296-300.
14. García-Rodríguez A, Martín-Jiménez F, Carnero-Varo M, Gómez-Gracia E, Gómez-Aracena J, Fernández-Crehuet J. Flexible flat feet in children: a real problem? Pediatrics 1999;103:e84.
15. Cappello T, Song KM. Determining treatment of flatfeet in children. Curr Opin Pediatr 1998;10:77-81.
16. McCluskey LC. Reconstructive surgery of the foot and ankle. In: Donatelli RA, Wooden MJ, editors. Orthopaedic physical therapy. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2001. p. 527-30.
17. Echarri JJ, Forriol F. The development in footprint morphology in 1851 Congolese children from urban and rural areas, and the relationship between this and wearing shoes. J Pediatr Orthop B 2003;12:141-6.
18. Atamtürk D, Duyar İ. Düz ve yüksek tabanlılık: Ergonomik açıdan önemi. In: Gazi Üniversitesi. 12. Ulusal Ergonomi Kongresi; 16-18 Kasım 2006; Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Yayınları; 2006. s. 201-6.
19. Ferciot CF. The etiology of developmental flatfoot. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1972;(85):7-10.
20. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1987;69:426-8.
21. Riddiford-Harland DL, Steele JR, Storlien LH. Does obesity influence foot structure in prepubescent children? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24:541-4.
22. Dowling AM, Steele JR, Baur LA. Does obesity influence foot structure and plantar pressure patterns in prepubescent children? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001;25:845-52.
23. Birtane M, Tuna H. The evaluation of plantar pressure distribution in obese and non-obese adults. Clin Biomech 2004;19:1055-9.
24. Wearing SC, Hennig EM, Byrne NM, Steele JR, Hills AP. Musculoskeletal disorders associated with obesity: a biomechanical perspective. Obes Rev 2006;7:239-50.
25. Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M. Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics 2006;118:634-9.
26. Villarroya MA, Esquivel JM, Tomaacutes C, Buenafeacute A, Moreno L. Foot structure in overweight and obese children. Int J Pediatr Obes 2008;3:39-45.
27. Mickle KJ, Steele JR, Munro BJ. The feet of overweight and obese young children: are they flat or fat? Obesity 2006; 14:1949-53.