Three-Dimensional (3D) Morphometric Analysis of Plegic and Healthy Feet of Patients with Stroke


Creative Commons License

KARAGÜLLE M., YILDIRIM Y., ozsoy u., SÜZEN B., May H.

European Journal of Therapeutics, cilt.29, sa.3, ss.606-619, 2023 (ESCI) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 29 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.58600/eurjther1701
  • Dergi Adı: European Journal of Therapeutics
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.606-619
  • Akdeniz Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to quantitatively assess the changes in foot morphology in stroke patients using 3D scanning and focused on parameters like foot volume, area, and the root mean square difference (RMS) values. The objective was to enhance our understanding of post-stroke foot morphology and its potential relevance for rehabilitation, especially in designing orthotic supports and specialized footwear for stroke patients. Methods: Our study involved fourteen right hemiplegia patients and twenty healthy subjects. Stroke patients were assessed using international scales. We utilized a 3D scanning device to digitize and examine the differences in foot morphology between hemiplegic and healthy subjects, analyzing the data on a computer platform. Results: In the context of post-stroke individuals with hemiplegic feet, our morphometric analysis revealed notable differences in foot area and foot volume when compared to their healthy counterparts. These distinctions extended to linear measurements encompassing foot length, foot width, instep height, bimalleolar width, and ball width. Significantly, RMS exhibited a substantial increase in the patient cohort compared to the healthy group (p<0.05). Our investigation also established correlations between these standing morphometric parameters and RMS alterations, with noteworthy coefficients for various parameters: RMS(Foot Length Difference, 0.41), RMS(Foot Width Difference, 0.45), RMS(Instep Height Difference, 0.58), RMS(Ball Width Difference, 0.58), RMS(Bimalleolar Width Difference, 0.19), RMS(Volume Difference, 0.74), and RMS(Area Difference, 0.62). Conclusion: This study suggests incorporating RMS values as a novel parameter in the evaluation process. We anticipate that these findings will have practical implications, particularly in designing orthotic supports, specialized footwear for stroke patients, and the formulation of tailored rehabilitation programs within clinical settings.