두 족저압 측정장비의 비교 분석

• Published in: 대한족부족관절학회지 Vol. 28; no. 1; pp. 21 - 26
• Main Authors: 강호원, 변수민, 김대유, 조윤재, 경민규, 이동연, Ho Won Kang, Soomin Pyeun, Dae-Yoo Kim, Yun Jae Cho, Min Gyu Kyung, Dong Yeon Lee
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Korean
• Published: 대한족부족관절학회 01.03.2024
• Subjects: 정형외과학; Plantar pressure; Flat foot; Pedobarography; Reliability; Foot
• ISSN: 1738-3757; 2288-8551
• DOI: 10.14193/jkfas.2024.28.1.21

Purpose: Foot pressure measurement devices are used widely in clinical settings for plantar pressure assessments. Despite the availability of various devices, studies evaluating the inter-device reliability are limited. This study compared plantar pressure measurements obtained from HR Mat (Tekscan Inc.) and EMED-n50 (Novel GmbH). Materials and Methods: The study involved 38 healthy male volunteers. The participants were categorized into two groups based on the Meary's angle in standing foot lateral radiographs: those with normal feet (angles ranging from -4° to 4°) and those with mild flatfeet (angles from -8° to -15°). The static and dynamic plantar pressures of the participants were measured using HR Mat and EMED-n50. The reliability of the contact area and mean force was assessed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Furthermore, the differences in measurements between the two devices were examined, considering the presence of mild flatfoot. Results: The ICC values for the contact area and mean force ranged from 0.703 to 0.947, indicating good-to-excellent reliability across all areas. EMED-n50 tended to record higher contact areas than HR Mat. The mean force was significantly higher in the forefoot region when measured with EMED-n50, whereas, in the hindfoot region, this difference was observed only during static measurements with HR Mat. Participants with mild flatfeet exhibited significantly higher contact areas in the midfoot region for both devices, with no consistent differences in the other parameters. Conclusion: The contact area and mean force measurements of the HR Mat and EMED-n50 showed high reliability. On the other hand, EMED-n50 tended to record higher contact areas than HR Mat. In cases of mild flatfoot, an increase in contact area within the midfoot region was observed, but no consistent impact on the differences between the two devices was evident.