Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

(A) 3D model reconstructed from CT images Oblique (B) and sagittal view (C) of the materialized model.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The meshes of bones (A) and soft tissue (B) and sole plate (C) The cross-section view of the soft tissue mesh.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The model was simulated using a load that represents full-weight-bearing and applying traction force to the related tendons that represents the dynamic stabilizer for the ankle (A). Applying force to the sole to simulate plantar support for the medial longitudinal arch (B). The red area is the plantar support area (C).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The height of the medial longitudinal arch (A Real patient X-rays) (B Model simulation).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

The demographic details of the six patients.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Results of the validation process.

The values correspond to the difference between the measured distance from each point to the ground, under two different conditions: No weight-bearing and full weight-bearing.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

The height fall of the medial longitudinal arch on the sagittal plane and the talus medial displacement on the frontal plane in normal foot and flexible flatfoot model under loading and plantar supporting.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Equivalent stress on the articular surface of each joint in the medial longitudinal arch in normal foot and flexible flatfoot model under loading.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Maximum principal stress variation of the lateral ankle ligaments in normal foot and flexible flatfoot model under loading.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Maximum principal stress variation of the medial ankle ligaments in normal foot and flexible flatfoot model under loading.

More »

Table 6 Expand