A comparison of footprint indexes calculated from ink and electronic footprints.
Pressure platforms offer the potential to measure and record electronic footprints rapidly; however, the accuracy of geometric indexes derived from these prints has not been investigated. A comparison of conventional ink footprints with simultaneously acquired electronic prints revealed significant differences in several geometric indexes. The contact area was consistently underestimated by the electronic prints and resulted in a significant change in the arch index. The long plantar angle was poorly correlated between techniques. This study demonstrated that electronic footprints, derived from a pressure platform, are not representative of the equivalent ink footprints and, consequently, should not be interpreted with reference to literature on conventional footprints.
Urry
S R
SR
School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.
Wearing
S C
SC
D000328:Adult; D001315:Australia; D003878:Dermatoglyphics; D004582:Electronics, Medical / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D005528:Foot / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D006801:Humans; D007281:Ink; D008297:Male; D011032:Podiatry / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D011312:Pressure; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards*