Affiliations: [a] Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Bezm-i Alem Vakif University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey | [b] Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Trakya University School of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey | [c] Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Medipol University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey | [d] Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Rize State Hospital, Rize, Turkey | [e] Biostatistics Department, Trakya University School of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Ozgur Taspinar, Department of Pyhisical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Alem
Vakıf Unı versity School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. Tel.: +90 212 533 23 26; Fax: +90 5326745917; E-mail:[email protected]
Abstract: Pes planus is a condition that can cause pain along the innerfoot due to the
absence or abnormal depression of the longitudinal arch. There are few
studies available that compare therapy modalities used in these patients. In
our study, those treated with conservative therapies - internal and external
shoe modifications and pes planus exercises - were compared clinically and
pedobarographyically. 60 pes planus patients were included in the study. In
the first group; internal modification was performed by placing a medial
longitudinal arch support inside the shoe. In the second group, external
shoe modification was performed using the Thomas heel. In the third group of
patients however, only an exercise program was executed. The patients' foot
pain levels, functional asssessment, satisfaction and quality of life were
recorded. Pedobarography was used in measuring both static and dynamic
plantar pressure. Assessments were carried out at baseline and at the end of
the first and third months respectively where intra- and inter- group
comparisons were performed. Each group was composed of 20 subjects. While
improvement in terms of foot pain, foot function index and quality of life
was observed in all the study groups (p< 0.05), the most improvement was
observed in the group of patients treated with internal modification
(p< 0.016). This was followed by the external modification and the exercise
groups respectively. No difference was observed between the internal and
external modification groups in terms of patient satisfaction.
Cross-sectionally; clinical assessments, pedobarographic analysis were
correlated. The changes observed after static and dynamic pedobarographic
studies were not significantly different between the study groups. At the
end of the study it was observed that internal modification yielded the most
significant clinical improvement. In the literature, there are limited
publications comparing the conservative treatments with each other. In this
study we aimed to compare the conservative treatments for flatfoot.
