Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I am new in podiatry. I'm confuse about the definition between pes planus and pes planovalgus. Are they synonymous? I have read from article that pes planovalgus is pes planus with heel valgus.

Thanks in advance for helping me out

 

Ptulaya - yes that is pretty much what it is.
Pes planus --> foot flat
Pes planovalgus --> foot flat and heel in valgus

BUT, there are so many different definitions and classifications --- if this is part of your PhD, you going to have to resolve this issue of definitions and understandings.

A big problem with pes planus and pes plano valgus is that they are descriptive terms of an outcome. This means that this apperanace of the foot may have several different causes; if you going to do research on "pes planus", the results may depend on how many of which of the different causes end up in the group being investigated.

When a foot "flattens" or "pronates", there are various amounts of different observation in different body planes eg
- abduction of forfefoot
- lowering of medial arch
- bowing of achilles
- heel valgus
- heel plantarflexion
- medial midfoot bulging
-etc

Have a look at the foot posture index

A foot could be considered "planus" on the arch height criteria, but you see feet with normal arches but very valgus heels --- should they be called "flat" or "pronated"
What if the foot is 'normal' on all criteria except for the abduction of the forefoot? Is that "flat" or "pronated" etc etc etc

...and that is just the final static appearance of the foot and does not take into account that each of those different observations have different causes.

...and different causes may be more or less important in correlating to pathology, even though the feet may look the same.

... and different observations may be more or less important that others, eg some claim that a 'flat foot' that has the calcaneus that has gone past vertical is much more 'destructive' than one that hasn't

...and then there are all the joint axes variations (look up planal dominance) that determines how much you get of what observation in the different body planes.

...and then there is the forces that associated with it. eg you could have a really "flat foot" or "overpronated" but the forces that are driving it are low --> no symptoms and easily fixed. Or you could have a "normal" foot, but magnitude of forces are high --> hurts. For eg, see supination resistance.

There are a lot of issues here and which way you go with your PhD will depend on what yoru research question is.

What is your research question?

 

I am very appreciated about your answer. I have read more following your suggestions. I found another confusion. Are 'overpronation', 'hyperpronation' and 'flatfoot' the same things? I try to search the trustful source but I can't find one. Would you please help me, Craig Payne? I may missed some topics in podiatry arena.

Another question,please, What do think about term 'pre-existing' flatfoot? Dose it mean the condition in person that flatfoot still persisting since childhood? Is this the appropriate term to use?

Thanks in advance.

 

You might find these two blog posts helpful:
The nonsensical understanding of ‘overpronation’
Overpronation: Accurate or Out of Date Terminology?

 

Dear Craig Payne,

I have read both of your links. I can conclude that pronation is the movement, not diagnosis. So the term 'over-' and 'hyperpronation' should not be used.

If my understanding about pronation term is correct, I would like to ask further.

- Am I understand this correctly? Flatfoot is a general term of pes planovalgus, not pes planus.

- Is the term 'pre-existing flatfoot' appropriate to describe the flatfoot in adult that persisting since childhood?

Thanks in advance.

Tulaya

 

Probably correct. They are such vague and dated terms that I would tend to stay clear of them. They are vague due to, for eg, two feet may look the same, but have different causes, therefore have different effects on function. We really need to get away from the generic use of the term "flat foot" etc

It would be OK, but it is a term that is not in common usage. As long as you explain what you mean by it, it would be OK

 

Thanks a lot Craig Payne. I am very appreciate your kindness.