Correlation between Chronic Ankle Instability and Center of Pressure Using Pedobrarograph

Eun Soo Park; Sang Gyo Seo; Ho Seong Lee

doi:10.14193/jkfas.2020.24.1.14

Journal List > J Korean Foot Ankle Soc > v.24(1) > 1144008

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Seo, and Lee: Correlation between Chronic Ankle Instability and Center of Pressure Using Pedobrarograph

Original Article

J Korean Foot Ankle Soc 2020;24(1):14-18.

Published online: 20 January 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14193/jkfas.2020.24.1.14

Correlation between Chronic Ankle Instability and Center of Pressure Using Pedobrarograph

Eun Soo Park, Sang Gyo Seo, Ho Seong Lee

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

^∗Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SNU Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding Author: Sang Gyo Seo Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SNU Seoul Hospital, 237 Gonghang-daero, Gangseo-gu, Seoul 07803, Korea Tel: 82-2-333-5151, Fax: 82-2-333-5152, E-mail: sanggyoseo@naver.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0145-4066

Received 4 March 2020 Revised 8 February 2020 Accepted 10 February 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

Chronic ankle instability is a very common abnormality of the ankle, but there is still controversy regarding its evaluation criteria. The stress view has difficulties in reflecting the patient's symptoms and treatment progress. Therefore, this study examined the relationship between the center of pressure (COP) measured by a pedobarograph and the symptoms of the patient.

Materials and Methods

Thirty patients with chronic ankle instability from February to August 2018 were included. Each patient was surveyed with the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS). The COP was measured with a foot pressure scanner, and the travel distance and ellipse area of the COP were calculated. Each patient was measured on one foot and on two feet with his or her eyes closed and open. The relationship between the COP measurement and FAOS score was analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

The participants were consisted of 21 male and nine female, with a mean age of 30 years, mean weight of 72 kg, and mean foot size of 259 mm. With the eyes open, the correlation coefficient between the FAOS and travel distance of the affected side was –0.394 (p<0.05) and that between the FAOS and the ellipse area of the affected side was –0.425 (p<0.05). On the other hand, no significant correlations were found between the travel distance and ellipse area of the affected side when patients closed their eyes.

Conclusion

Measurement of the COP using foot pressure scanner could evaluate objectively patients with chronic ankle instability, with measurements in patients with their eyes open being more significant. Based on the findings of this study, an analysis of the COP with the patients with their eyes open and standing on one foot may help determine the management strategy and assess the progress of the patients.

Keywords: Chronic ankle instability, Pedobarograph, Balance

References

1. Olmsted LC, Carcia CR, Hertel J, Shultz SJ. Efficacy of the star excursion balance tests in detecting reach deficits in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2002; 37:501–6.

2. Freeman MA. Instability of the foot after injuries to the lateral ligament of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1965; 47:669–77. doi:. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.47B4.669.

3. Kaikkonen A, Kannus P, Järvinen M. A performance test protocol and scoring scale for the evaluation of ankle injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1994; 22:462–9. doi:. DOI: 10.1177/036354659402200405.

4. Ji SW, Kim HS, Kwon KW, Shin YO, Kim YJ, Lee JP, et al. The ankle strength, balance and functional ability of the adolescent volleyball players with functional ankle instability. Korean J Phys Educ-Huma-nit Soc Sci. 2004; 43:567–78.

5. Lee KM, Chung CY, Kwon SS, Sung KH, Lee SY, Won SH, et al. Transcultural adaptation and testing psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Clin Rheumatol. 2013; 32:1443–50. doi:. DOI: 10.1007/s10067-013-2288-1.

6. Guillo S, Bauer T, Lee JW, Takao M, Kong SW, Stone JW, et al. Consensus in chronic ankle instability: aetiology, assessment, surgical indications and place for arthroscopy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013; 99(8 Suppl):): S411-9.doi:. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009.

7. Lord SR, Murray SM, Chapman K, Munro B, Tiedemann A. Sit-to-stand performance depends on sensation, speed, balance, and psychological status in addition to strength in older people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002; 57:M539–43. doi:. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/57.8.m539.

8. Plisky PJ, Gorman PP, Butler RJ, Kiesel KB, Underwood FB, Elkins B. The reliability of an instrumented device for measuring components of the star excursion balance test. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2009; 4:929.

9. Shin SH, Lee JW, Jeong GY, Kwon TK. Assessment of body for dynamic postural balance exercise. Paper presented at: The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers Spring Conference;. 2011. May; Busan, Korea. p.2718–9.

10. Jonsson E, Seiger A, Hirschfeld H. One-leg stance in healthy young and elderly adults: a measure of postural steadiness? Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004; 19:688–94. doi:. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.04.002.

11. Bohannon RW, Leary KM. Standing balance and function over the course of acute rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 76:994–6. doi:. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9993 (95)81035-8.

12. Frzovic D, Morris ME, Vowels L. Clinical tests of standing balance: performance of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81:215–21. doi:. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9993 (00)90144-8.

13. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986; 34:119–26. doi:. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1986.tb05480.x.

14. Karlsson A, Frykberg G. Correlations between force plate measures for assessment of balance. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2000; 15:365–9. doi:. DOI: 110.1016/s0268-0033 (99)00096-0.

15. Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Martino MT, Ricupero C. Reliability of four simple, quantitative tests of balance and mobility in healthy elderly females. Aging (Milano). 1998; 10:26–31. doi:. DOI: 10.1007/bf03339630.

16. Coughlan GF, Fullam K, Delahunt E, Gissane C, Caulfield BM. A comparison between performance on selected directions of the star excursion balance test and the Y balance test. J Athl Train. 2012; 47:366–71. doi:. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-47.4.03.

17. Ruhe A, Fejer R, Walker B. The test-retest reliability of centre of pressure measures in bipedal static task conditions–a systematic review of the literature. Gait Posture. 2010; 32:436–45. doi:. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.09.012.

18. Adlerton AK, Moritz U, Moe-Nilssen R. Forceplate and accelerometer measures for evaluating the effect of muscle fatigue on postural control during one-legged stance. Physiother Res Int. 2003; 8:187–99. doi:. DOI: 10.1002/pri.289.

19. Goh EK. Clinical application of computerized dynamic posturography. J Korean Balance Soc. 2005; 4:107–18.

20. Verhagen E, Bobbert M, Inklaar M, van Kalken M, van der Beek A, Bouter L, et al. The effect of a balance training programme on centre of pressure excursion in one-leg stance. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005; 20:1094–100. doi:. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.07.001.

21. Haas G, Diener HC, Rapp H, Dichgans J. Development of feedback and feedforward control of upright stance. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1989; 31:481–8. doi:. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1989.tb04026.x.

22. Le Clair K, Riach C. Postural stability measures: what to measure and for how long. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1996; 11:176–8. doi:. DOI: 10.1016/0268-0033 (95)00027-5.

23. Mauritz KH, Dietz V. Characteristics of postural instability induced by ischemic blocking of leg afferents. Exp Brain Res. 1980; 38:117–9. doi:. DOI: 10.1007/bf00237939.

24. Riach CL, Hayes KC. Maturation of postural sway in young children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1987; 29:6508. doi:. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1987.tb08507.x.

25. Schmit JM, Regis DI, Riley MA. Dynamic patterns of postural sway in ballet dancers and track athletes. Exp Brain Res. 2005; 163:370–8. doi:. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-004-2185-6.

26. Tsai LC, Yu B, Mercer VS, Gross MT. Comparison of different structural foot types for measures of standing postural control. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36:942–53. doi:. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2006.2336.

27. Murphy DF, Connolly DA, Beynnon BD. Risk factors for lower extremity injury: a review of the literature. Br J Sports Med. 2003; 37:13–29. doi:. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.37.1.13.

Figure 1.

Measuring center of pressure (open eyes).

Figure 2.

Measuring center of pressure (closed eyes).

Figure 3.

Male (64 kg, 20 years old), shoes size 265 mm, center of pressure (open eyes) was examined during single leg standing for 30 seconds (short arrow: traveled distance, long arrow: ellipse area).

Figure 4.

Correlation between center of pressure and FAOS. COP: center of pressure, QOL: quality of life, FAOS: foot and ankle outcome score.

Table 1.

Demographic Factors

No.	Sex	Age (yr)	Weight (kg)	Shoe size (mm)
1	Male	20	64	265
2	Male	21	80	275
3	Female	38	62	245
4	Male	61	61	255
5	Male	47	80	260
6	Male	16	64	270
7	Male	21	81	280
8	Female	35	63	235
9	Female	41	57	250
10	Male	50	87	265
11	Female	24	70	240
12	Male	28	74	260
13	Male	21	72	255
14	Male	18	68	275
15	Female	26	59	250
16	Female	32	66	240
17	Male	36	112	290
18	Male	19	88	275
19	Male	25	70	260
20	Female	20	56	225
21	Male	60	75	255
22	Male	26	78	260
23	Female	23	45	235
24	Female	24	60	250
25	Male	19	80	270
26	Male	25	75	260
27	Male	45	81	275
28	Male	19	80	270
29	Male	21	65	255
30	Male	38	87	275

Table 2.

Result of the Affected Side Examined with Open Eyes (Pearson Correlation Coefficients)

Variable	Distance	Ellipse area	Ellipse principal axis	Ellipse secondary axis
Pain	–0.394 (p=0.038)^∗	0.326 (p=0.091)	0.252 (p=0.196)	0.252 (p=0.196)
Symptoms	0.080 (p=0.687)	0.080 (p=0.687)	–0.144 (p=0.465)	0.109 (p=0.581)
QOL	0.109 (p=0.581)	–0.425 (p=0.024)^∗	0.367 (p=0.054)	0.399 (p=0.036)
Sports	0.215 (p=0.303)	0.138 (p=0.510)	0.168 (p=0.423)	0.129 (p=0.538)
FAOS total	–0.429 (p=0.023)^∗	0.358 (p=0.061)	0.311 (p=0.107)	0.342 (p=0.075)

QOL: quality of life, FAOS: foot and ankle outcome score.

^∗ Statistically significant (p<0.05).

TOOLS

Similar articles