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.
I recently reviewed a paper that claimed the differences in arch height between weightbearing and non-weightbearing was a measure of windlass function!!
:pigs:
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
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.
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"....
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!
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:
Comparison of the Changes in the Structure of the Transverse Arch of the Normal and Hallux Valgus Feet under Different Loading Positions
Hala Zeidan, Yusuke Suzuki, Yuu Kajiwara, Kengo Nakai, Kanako Shimoura, Soyoka Yoshimi, Masataka Tatsumi, Yuichi NishidaOrcID, Tsubasa Bito and Tomoki Aoyama Appl. Syst. Innov. 2019, 2(1), 3; https://doi.org/10.3390/asi2010003
Relationship between forefoot structure,
including the transverse arch, and forefoot pain
in patients with hallux valgus
Kengo Nakai et al J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 31: 202–205, 2019
Functional and Morphological Analysis of the Transverse Arch of the Foot by Using Precise Pressure Sensors and 2D Ultrasound
Hala Zeidan, Hirotaka Iijima, Ryo Eguchi, Yusuke Suzuki, Kengo Nakai, Koji Fujimoto, Tomoki Aoyama 著者情報
Correlation between Foot Transverse Arch Index and Foot Posture Index in Identifying Foot Arches in Healthy Population.
Das, Pubali; Jeyakumar, S.; Thomas, Annie; Lendghar, Priti Source