Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Measuring the Transverse Arch of the Foot

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by NewsBot, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Reliability of the Transverse Arch of the Forefoot as an Indicator of Foot Conditions
    Shintarou Kudou, Kazuki Hamajima, Junpei Kaneiwa, Yasuhiko Hatanaka
    Journal of Physical Therapy Science; Vol. 24 (2012) No. 4 May p. 335-337 (Full text)
     
  2. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Difficult to see this without going back over the discussion of the existence of a distal transverse metatarsal arch...
     
  3. What ?

    :deadhorse:

    full text

    Reliability of the Transverse Arch of the Forefoot as an Indicator of Foot Conditions

    ok so we are it seems talking about the distal transverse arch - the one that does not exist.

    and what they are measuring is the increased width of the forefoot at the met heads -

    How that got published ?

    :bang:
     
  4. aye :D
     
  5. Semantics not withstanding, a cursory glance suggests that they are measuring forefoot width and foot length and suggesting that the ratio of these is predictive of pathology.
     
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    Strange ...... I really fail to see how a measure of forefoot width has anything to do with a non-existent distal transverse arch. :pigs:

    I recently reviewed a paper that claimed the differences in arch height between weightbearing and non-weightbearing was a measure of windlass function!! :pigs:
     
  7. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Notwithstanding all of the above, let us be quite clear - at least I am quite clear; there is a transverse arch of exquisite engineering at about the level of the anterior aspect of the tarsus, with its meeting with the metatarsus. The key stone principle of the metatarsal bases is manifest. Rob
     
  8. Yeah, Rob, I've been saying the same thing for quite some time here on Podiatry Arena. I still don't see what all the fuss is about a transverse metatarsal arch unless people are claiming that this transverse metatarsal arch occurs at the metatarsal head level. Certainly, at the more proximal aspect of the metatarsals, the transverse metatarsal arch plays a significant role in mechanical stability of the foot.
     
  9. Agreed. But they appear to have measured forefoot width at the level of the metatarsophalangeal joints.
     
  10. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    We been around this stump before. The study in question and what I was referring to is a DISTAL metatarsal arch (ie the met heads) which EVERY study has shown does not exist.
    I still don't get how the width of the foot relate to anything related to a "metatarsal arch"....
     
  11. Here's my take on that funny arch we never really look at: I don't even look at that black abyss and, knock on wood, patients do very well with the orthotics I prescribed them, and few, if any, adjustments or mods are required or necessary. The funny thing is, if 95% or more of your patients are doing extremely well with your orthotics you are prescribing, without even looking at the TArch, wouldn't it be fair to say we should be very happy with that. Too much additional, unnecessary info will make the soup taste funny!

    K.I.S.S. is my motto!
    But thanks for the thought!
     
  12. My point exactly.
     
  13. We must also remember that this paper was done by a group of Japanese physical therapists. It could be a translation or terminology problem. The term "maximum forefoot width" would probably have been a better term to use rather than the term "transverse arch length".

    I just reviewed a paper for a sports medicine/biomechanics journal where the term "first metatarsophalangeal joint extension" was used instead of "first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion". In my review, I stated that the term MPJ extension is confusing to podiatrists but, I believe in many disciplines, the term "metatarsophalangeal joint extension" is preferred to "metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion".

    These are just a few of the difficulties of interdisciplinary communication among the international scientific and medical communities.:wacko:
     
Loading...

Share This Page