Fig 1.
Weight-bearing plantar ultrasound imaging device and ultrasound images.
(a) WPUID constructed with an internal probe allowing coronal views of the transverse arch; (b) ultrasound probe inserted upside-down and an upper opening for a gel pad to be placed on the probe; (c) shows the ultrasound image: the lowest point of the MS, LS, 2MTH, 3MTH, 4MTH and 5MTH as well as their plantar projections were marked by yellow stars. TAH (red line) is the distance from 2MTH perpendicular to the line passing through MS and 5MTH. Metatarsal heads’ height (orange dotted lines) is the distance between the lowest point of the bone and its plantar surface marker. SRA (yellow angle) is the angle between the line passing through MS and LS and the line passing through MS and 5MTH. US: ultrasound; WPUID: Weightbearing Plantar Ultrasound Imaging Device; MTH: metatarsal head; TAH: transverse arch height; SRA: sesamoid rotation angle; MS: medial sesamoid; LS lateral sesamoid; 2MTH: second metatarsal head; 3MTH: third metatarsal head; 4MTH: forth metatarsal head; 5MTH: fifth metatarsal head; pl: plantar surface.
Fig 2.
Force sensing device using force sensors.
(a) Force sensors’ system with the 12 sensors and a weight scale; (b) shows the sensors stuck on the skin surface of the metatarsal heads after palpation.
Fig 3.
(a) sitting position: participant is seated on a chair with knees 90 degrees flexed, both feet placed for measurement; (b) standing position: participant keeps her feet as placed in the former position and stands up. The weight scale is used to balance half the weight on both feet; (c) 90%WS position: 90% of body weight is placed on the tested foot while 10% of the body weight is monitored on the weight scale under the nontested foot. 90%WS: 90% weight shift.
Table 1.
Physical characteristics of NORM and HVG groups.
The results are represented as mean ± SD, compared using Student’s t-test. P-value was set as 0.05.
Table 2.
Physical characteristics of HV Pain (-) and HV Pain (+) groups.
The results are represented as mean ± SD, compared using Student’s t-test. P-value was set as 0.05.
Table 3.
TAH, SRA and metatarsal heads’ heights between NORM and HVG in sitting, standing and 90%WS positions; results presented as mean ± SD, compared using Student’s t-test.
Table 4.
TAH, SRA and metatarsal heads’ heights between HV Pain (-) and HV Pain (+) in the sitting, standing and 90%WS positions; results presented as mean ± SD, compared using Student’s t-test.
Table 5.
Force under the metatarsal heads between NORM and HVG in sitting, standing and 90%WS positions; results presented as mean ± SD, compared using Wilcoxon test.
Table 6.
Force under the metatarsal heads between HV Pain (-) and HV Pain (+) in sitting, standing and 90%WS positions; results presented as mean ± SD, compared using Wilcoxon test.
Table 7.
Association the significant parameters in NORM vs HVG with HVA, adjusted to age and BMI using multiple logistic regression.