Arch Height Index

NewsBot · May 22, 2013

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Arch Height Index Normative Values of College-Aged Women Using the Arch Height Index Measurement System
Wendi H. Weimar and Justin F. Shroyer
JAPMA May/June 2013 vol. 103 no. 3 213-217

Background: The arch height index measurement system (AHIMS) device has been found to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the arch height index (AHI) of the feet of individuals; however, normative data for the AHI are lacking for various populations. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to establish population normative AHI values for college-aged females and to compare the observed AHI data across right and left feet.

Methods: Seventy-nine college-aged females served as study participants, and both feet were measured using the AHIMS in the seated and standing positions. The AHI was calculated as the ratio of the dorsum height of the foot at half the total foot length to the length of the foot from the heel to the base of the first metatarsophalangeal joint.

Results: The mean ± SD AHI values for the left and right feet in the seated position were 0.355 ± 0.031 and 0.369 ± 0.034, respectively. The mean ± SD AHI values for the left and right feet in the standing position were 0.338 ± 0.031 and 0.343 ± 0.033, respectively. There were significant differences observed between the left and right feet for the seated (P < .001) and standing (P = .003) positions.

Conclusions: Normative values were established for college-aged females for the AHI using the AHIMS. Differences were noted between the right and left feet of the participants sampled. Although normative values were obtained, we caution against using these values to classify foot arch types based solely on a sample of the population studied.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Dec 17, 2016

Reliability of the Arch Height Index as a Measure of Foot Structure in Children.
Drefus LC, Kedem P, Mangan SM, Scher DM, Hillstrom HJ.
Pediatr Phys Ther. 2017 Jan;29(1):83-88.

PURPOSE:
To determine the intrarater and interrater reliability of the arch height index (AHI) in children developing typically. The AHI is tested with a device that measures foot structure.
METHODS:
Thirty children, ages 6 to 12 years, participated for a total of n = 60 feet. The AHI measurements were taken by 2 investigators in sitting and standing and repeated twice by each investigator in a single visit. Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (2,1) statistical analysis.
RESULTS:
The mean age was 9.61 ± 1.96 years. The intrarater and interrater reliability had an ICC 0.76 or more in both sitting and standing. The average AHI value was 0.36 ± 0.02 in sitting and 0.32 ± 0.02 in standing.
CONCLUSIONS:
Pediatric therapists, physicians, and orthotists should consider using the AHI as an objective measure to be used for research, to assess foot structure, monitor change over time, and assist with treatment planning in children.
Click to expand...

mike weber · Dec 18, 2016

That's a big statement AHI measures adding in treatment planning.

Maybe time we get away from comparisons to a so called Normal

NewsBot · Mar 4, 2017

Normative Value of Arch Index in Elderly- A Cross
Sectional Study
Miss. Vaishali. R. Pornak et al
International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS)
Volume 02 Issue 01 January 2017, ISSN No. – 2455-8737

Background: The Medial longitudinal arch (MLA) is a very important structure of the foot. As age advances it undergoes some
anatomical and biomehanical changes. Body mass index may have its effect on the MLA. Till date Normal values of arch Index
have not yet been established in elderly Indian population and Body Mass Index (BMI) may influence the Arch Index.
Aims and objectives: To find the normative values of Arch Index and to find its correlaion with BMI.
Method: A cross sectional study was conducted among the community dwelling elderly of Ahmednagar district. 100 elderly (50
Males & 50 Females) in the age group of 60-85 years were included in the study. The demographic data was collected and
measurements of Arch Index were taken to find out normative values.
Results: The normative values of Arch Index were 0.352(0.21, 0.44) on right foot and 0.354(0.19, 0.48) on left foot in both the
genders. There was no correlation of BMI with Arch Index on both sides.
Conclusion: The normative value of arch index in elderly is 0.35 in both males and females and Arch index has no correlation
with BMI.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jul 14, 2017

Reliability and correlation of static and dynamic foot arch measurement in a healthy pediatric population
Karsten Hollander et al
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association In-Press.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of the medial longitudinal foot arch in children is a controversial topic, as there are many different methods without a definite gold-standard. The purpose of this study was to 1) investigate intra-day- and inter-rater-reliability regarding dynamic arch index and static arch height, 2) to explore the correlation between both arch indices and 3) to examine the variation of the medial longitudinal arch at two different times of the day.

METHODS: Eighty-six children (age 8.9, SD 1.9 years) participated in the study. Dynamic footprint data were captured with a pedobarographic platform. For static arch measurements a specially-constructed caliper was used to assess heel-to-toe-length and dorsum height. A mixed model was established to determine reliability and variation.

RESULTS: Reliability was found to be excellent for the static arch height index in sitting (intraday: 0.90; interrater: 0.80) and standing position (0.88 and 0.85) as well as for the dynamic arch index (both 1.00). There was a poor correlation between static and dynamic assessment of the medial longitudinal arch (standing/emed: r=-0.138; sitting/emed: r=-0. 070). Static measurements were found to be significantly influenced by the time of the day (p<0.001) whereas the dynamic arch index was unchanged (p=0.845). This study revealed some further important findings. The static arch height index is influenced by gender (p=0.004), whereas dynamic arch index is influenced by side (p=0.011) and BMI (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION: The dynamic and static foot measurements are reliable for the medial longitudinal foot arch assessment in children. The variation of static arch measurements during the day has to be kept in mind. For clinical purposes, static and dynamic arch data should be interpreted separately.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Nov 28, 2017

Correlation of Loaded and Unloaded Foot Area
With Arch Index in Younger Flatfoot
Dwi Basuki Wibowo et al
MATEC Web of Conferences 135, 00060 (2017)

Harris & Beath claimed 23% of human kind population is
indicated flatfoot. Identifying flatfoot is by using wet foot test. This
footprint is not accurate because of the difficulty to make sure the patient
stand upright. Another way is using x-ray to determine height of arch
which is a distance from medial longitudinal foot arch to the ground. If the
distance is less than certain level, so the foot type is included as flatfoot.
Other method proposed by Kulkarni et al. using the footprint index (FPI)
which is the ratio of B intercept to A intercept, where the footprint was
obtained from pedobarography image. If FPI is lower than 0.63, it is
categorized as flatfoot. Another method to determine arch type which is
widely used is Cavanagh’s Arch Index (AI) from division of mid foot area
to entire footprint area (excluding the toes). If AI>0.26, then the foot type
is flatfoot. This study is to learn the correlation between entire loaded and
unloaded foot area with Cavanagh’s AI. The entire loaded foot and
footprint area for evaluating AI derived from a digital footprint modified
from document scanner, while the entire unloaded foot area derived from a
3D scanner for foot orthotic. One hundred and two healthy asked
voluntarily for doing footprint. From 102 subjects found 63 participants
identified as flatfoot, 31 subjects are normal feet and 8 subjects identified
as high arch. A series of 3 x 3 repeated measures ANOVAs were used to
determine statistical differences (α<0.05). A significant interaction existed
between ratio of entire loaded and unloaded foot area (RFA) subject to all
categories of AI (p<0.05) also a correlation coefficient of r=0.67 has found
between RFA and AI on foot type of flatfoot which means that flatfoot can
be indicated by RFA.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jul 5, 2019

Reliability of a New Method to Determine Foot Arch Height for Clinicians.
James A. Charles, Clare Mignot, and Herbert F. Jelinek
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association: May 2019, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 187-192.

Background: Arch height is an important indicator of risk of foot pathology. The current non-invasive gold standard based on footprint information requires extensive pre-processing. Methods used to obtain arch height that are accurate and easier to use are required in routine clinical practice.

Methods: The proposed arch index diagonals (AId) method for determining the arch index (AI) reduces the complexity of the preprocessing steps. All footprints were first prepared as required by the Cavanagh and Rodgers method for determining the AI and then compared to the proposed diagonals method. Results were classified according to the Cavanagh and Rodgers cut-off values into three groups of low, normal and high AI. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests were applied to identify significant differences between AI groups. Linear modeling was applied to determine the fit of the new AId method compared to the Cavanagh and Rodgers AI.

Results: One hundred and ninety-six footprints were analyzed. The ANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups for AId (F1,194=94.49, p<0.0001) and the Tukey post hoc tests indicated significant differences between the pair-wise comparisons (p<0.001). Linear modeling indicated that the AId ratio classified more footprints in the high arch group compared to Cavanagh and Rodgers results (R2=32%, p< 0.01). Intra- and inter-rater correspondence was above 90% and confirmed that the AId results provided a better indication of arch height.

Conclusions: The proposed method simplifies current processing steps to derive the arch height.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jul 5, 2019

Evaluation of the paediatric foot using footprints and foot posture index: A cross-sectional study.
Gijon-Nogueron G et al
J Paediatr Child Health. 2019 Jul 2

AIM:
Footprints have long been used as proxy measures of foot morphology, yet there is little consensus regarding footprints versus measures of foot posture, which address foot anatomy directly. Foot posture in children can be a confusing clinical presentation, with previous studies both supporting and refuting the relationship between childhood obesity and flat feet. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between footprints and foot posture in children.

METHODS:
A total of 316 school children (153 boys, 163 girls) from Spain, aged 6-9 years, were assessed for both footprint (Clarke's angle (CA)), by Tecniwork Pedrograph Plate, and foot posture (foot posture index (FPI)) measures, with participants barefoot, in a relaxed standing position, on a 50-cm elevated platform.

RESULTS:
A negative correlation was found between FPI and footprints (CA) (rho = -0.505 left, P < 0.001) and by gender (rho = -0.457 for the left foot in girls, P < 0.001; rho = -0.548 for the left foot in boys, P < 0.001). The children with pes cavus according to the CA (73.3%) had normal feet according to FPI, and the children with severe pes planus according to the CA (78.98%) had pronated feet according to the FPI. A χ2 test showed these results to be statistically significant (P > 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:
An inverse relationship between CA and FPI was identified, that is, the greater the FPI, the smaller the CA, but not all pronated foot are planus feet and not all cavus feet are supinated feet. Footprints may overestimate and misguide paediatric foot posture concerns.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Nov 10, 2021

Arch Height Index, Arch Rigidity Index and Arch Stiffness Values in a Symptomatic Population
Megan Balsdon, Michaela E Khan, Dillon Richards, Colin E Dombroski
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2021 Oct 27

Background: Normative studies on the Arch Height Index (AHI), Arch Rigidity Index (ARI), and arch stiffness have primarily focused on healthy populations, with little consideration of pathology. The purpose of this study was to create a normative sample of the aforementioned measurements in a pathological sample and to identify relationships between arch structure measurements and pathology.

Methods: AHI was obtained bilaterally at 10% and 90% weightbearing conditions using the Arch Height Index Measurement System (AHIMS). ARI and arch stiffness were calculated using AHI measurements. Dependent t-tests compared right and left, dominant and non-dominant, and injured and non-injured limbs. Measurements of the dominant foot were compared between sexes using independent t-tests. Relationships between arch stiffness and age, sex, and AHI were examined using the coefficient of determination (R2). One-way ANOVAs were used to determine differences between arch structure measurements and number of pathologies or BMI.

Results: A total of 110 participants reported either one (n=55), two (n=38), or three or more (n=17) pathologies. Plantar fasciitis (n=31) and hallux valgus (n=28) were the most commonly reported primary concerns. AHI, ARI, and arch stiffness did not differ between limbs for any comparisons, nor between sexes. Between subgroups of BMI and number of pathologies, no differences exist in AHI or ARI; however, BMI was found to have an impact on AHI (10%WB) and arch stiffness (p<.05). Arch stiffness showed a weak relationship to AHI, where a higher AHI was associated with a stiffer arch (R2=0.06).

Conclusions: Normative AHI, ARI and arch stiffness values were established in a pathological sample with a large incidence of plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus. Findings suggest relationships between arch stiffness and both BMI and arch height; however, few trends were noted in AHI and ARI. Determining relationships between arch structure and pathology is helpful for both clinicians and researchers.
Click to expand...

Arch Height Index

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

mike weber MVP

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Quantification of Arch Height in a Foot Orthotic

Muscle strength and transverse arch height

Self awareness of arch height and foot structure

Height of the Medial Longitudinal Arch During Classical Ballet Steps

Effect of Arch Height and Material Hardness of Foot Orthotics

Arch Height and leg Stiffness

Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics

Share This Page

Arch Height Index

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

mike weber MVP

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Quantification of Arch Height in a Foot Orthotic

Muscle strength and transverse arch height

Self awareness of arch height and foot structure

Height of the Medial Longitudinal Arch During Classical Ballet Steps

Effect of Arch Height and Material Hardness of Foot Orthotics

Arch Height and leg Stiffness

Effects of different medial arch support heights on rearfoot kinematics

Share This Page

Useful Searches