بررسی فشارهای کف‌پایی وضعیت ایستا در افراد دارای بازسازی رباط صلیبی قدامی و پای پرونیت در بازه‌های زمانی متفاوت پس از جراحی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری بیومکانیک ورزشی، گروه بیومکانیک ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران.

2 دانشیار بیومکانیک ورزشی، گروه بیومکانیک ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران

3 استاد تمام بیومکانیک ورزشی، گروه بیومکانیک ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران.

4 دانشیار روماتولوژی، گروه داخلی، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اردبیل، اردبیل، ایران

چکیده
هدف این مطالعه، بررسی فشارهای کف­پایی وضعیت ایستا در افراد دارای بازسازی رباط صلیبی قدامی و پای پرونیت در بازه­های زمانی متفاوت پس از جراحی بود. تعداد 30 مرد دارای پای پرونیت با سابقه بازسازی رباط صلیبی قدامی داوطلب شرکت در این مطالعه شدند. برای اندازه­گیری فشارهای کف­پایی از دستگاه فوت اسکن ساخت کشور بلژیک استفاده شد. برای تجزیه و تحلیل آماری آزمون آنالیز واریانس دوسویه با اندازه­گیری­های تکراری به کار رفت. نتایج نشان داد که عامل زمان (قبل و بعد از خستگی) تأثیر معنا‌داری بر افزایش فشارهای کف­پایی در تمامی گروه‌ها داشت (001/0>P) همچنین عامل گروه تفاوت معنا‌داری بین گروه‌ها نشان داد؛ به ‌طوری ‌که گروه کمتر از شش ماه پس از بازسازی بیشترین مقادیر فشار را در نواحی پاشنه داخلی، میان‌پا، و متاتارسال‌ها داشت. اثر تعاملی زمان × گروه برای متغیرهای میانگین فشار کف پا، فشار در پاشنه داخلی، فشار در متاتارسال اول، و فشار در انگشتان 2 تا 5 معنا‌دار بود (05/0>P). نتایج آزمون‌های تعقیبی نشان داد که بیشترین افزایش فشار پس از خستگی در گروه کمتر از 6 و 12 ماه پس از بازسازی رخ داد. به نظر می­رسد، افراد دارای بازسازی رباط صلیبی قدامی و پای پرونیت، به‌ویژه در مراحل اولیه توانبخشی (کمتر از 12 ماه پس از جراحی)، در شرایط خستگی دچار افزایش درخورتوجهی در فشارهای کف­پایی می‌شوند که نشان‌دهنده ناپایداری بیشتر و توزیع نامناسب بار بر کف پا است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Assessment of Plantar Pressure in Static Standing Position Before and After Fatigue in Individuals with a History of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Pronated Foot at Different Time Intervals Post-Surgery

نویسندگان English

Ebrahim Piri 1
AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero 2
Mahrokh Dehghani 3
Afsaneh Enteshari-Moghaddam 4
1 PhD in Sports Biomechanics, Department of Sports Biomechanics, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Sports Biomechanics, Department of Sports Biomechanics, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
3 Professor of Sports Biomechanics, Department of Sports Biomechanics, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran. Iran
4 Associate Professor of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran. Iran
چکیده English

Background and Purpose
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is among the most prevalent and functionally disruptive injuries in the lower extremities, particularly in active populations. Surgical reconstruction (ACLR) is often required to restore knee stability, yet biomechanical deficits frequently persist long after the procedure, especially when compounded by pre-existing or concomitant biomechanical abnormalities such as pronated feet. Pronated foot posture, characterized by excessive eversion of the calcaneus and collapse of the medial longitudinal arch, alters the kinetic chain from the foot up to the hip and spine, potentially exacerbating instability and maladaptive loading patterns in ACL-reconstructed knees. Epidemiological data indicate that 20–23% of adult’s exhibit pronated feet, while annual ACL injury incidence ranges from 30 to 70 per 100,000 individuals, with over 200,000 ACL reconstructions performed annually in the United States alone. Despite advances in surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols, re-injury rates remain alarmingly high (5–25%), particularly within the first 1–2 years’ post-surgery, often attributed to premature return to sport, inadequate neuromuscular control, and unresolved biomechanical asymmetries. Muscular fatigue, a physiological state marked by reduced force-generating capacity and impaired neuromuscular coordination, further compounds these deficits. Fatigue diminishes proprioceptive acuity, delays muscle activation, and disrupts agonist-antagonist co-activation patterns, thereby increasing vulnerability to joint instability and abnormal loading. In individuals with ACLR, fatigue may unmask latent biomechanical deficiencies that are not apparent under non-fatigued conditions. Moreover, the synergistic effect of ACLR and pronated foot posture on plantar pressure distribution particularly under fatigued conditions remains underexplored, despite its critical implications for rehabilitation strategy and injury prevention.
Plantar pressure analysis serves as a sensitive biomechanical indicator of postural control, load distribution, and neuromuscular compensation strategies. Abnormal pressure patterns, especially elevated medial heel and midfoot pressures, are associated with increased pronation and may reflect compensatory strategies to stabilize the knee in the presence of residual ACL deficiency. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate static plantar pressure parameters in male individuals with ACL reconstruction and pronated feet across different post-surgical time intervals (less than 6 months, 6–12 months, and more than 12 months), both before and after induced muscular fatigue, to identify critical windows of vulnerability and inform targeted rehabilitation interventions.
 
Methods
This quasi-experimental study employed a pretest-posttest design with repeated measures and was conducted in the Sports Biomechanics Laboratory at the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran. Sample size calculation using G*Power 3.1 (P = 0.05, effect size = 0.7, power = 0.8) determined a minimum of 10 participants per group. Forty male volunteers aged
18–45 years were recruited and divided into four groups: Group A (ACLR + pronated foot, <6 months’ post-
operative, n=10), Group B (ACLR + pronated foot, 6–12 months’ post- operative, n=10), Group C (ACLR + pronated foot, >12 months’ post- operative, n=10), and Group D (healthy controls, n=10). Inclusion criteria comprised unilateral ACLR using hamstring autograft, absence of lower limb pain or injury, ability to run without restriction, BMI between 18.5–25 kg/m², navicular drop >10 mm, and rearfoot angle >4°. Exclusion criteria included history of lower limb fracture, leg length discrepancy >5 mm, or unwillingness to participate. Ethical approval was obtained (IR.UMA.REC.1404.019, IRCT20220129053865N2), and written informed consent was secured from all participants.
Plantar pressure data were collected using the Footscan pressure plate system (RSscan International, Belgium; 4363 sensors, 300 Hz sampling rate). The system automatically segmented the foot into 10 anatomical regions: medial heel, lateral heel, midfoot, metatarsals 1–5 (M1–M5), hallux (T1), and toes 2–5 (T2–T5). Measurements were taken in static standing posture, both pre- and post-fatigue. Fatigue was induced via a progressive treadmill protocol (Horizon Fitness, Omega GT, USA) starting at 6 km/h, increasing by 1 km/h every 2 minutes until participants reached a Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) of 13 or higher. Participants then maintained a steady pace of 12 km/h until RPE ≥17 or heart rate ≥80% of maximum for 2 minutes.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v23. Data normality was confirmed via Shapiro-Wilk test. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine the main effects of “time” (pre- vs. post-fatigue) and “group” (A, B, C, D), as well as their interaction. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were conducted where significant effects were found. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated for all significant outcomes. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
 
Results
Results revealed a significant main effect of time (fatigue) on nearly all plantar pressure variables (p < 0.001), indicating that fatigue universally increased plantar pressures across all groups. The “group” factor also showed significant differences (p < 0.05), with Group A (<6 months’ post-op) exhibiting the highest-pressure values in the medial heel, midfoot, and metatarsal regions suggesting that early-stage rehabilitation is marked by the most pronounced biomechanical compromise.
Critically, a significant time × group interaction was observed for mean plantar pressure (right foot: p = 0.006, d = 0.877; left foot: p = 0.007, d = 0.281), medial heel pressure (right: p = 0.001, d = 0.384; left: p = 0.041, d = 0.280), first metatarsal pressure (M1), and pressure under toes 2–5 (T2–T5) (right: p = 0.009, d = 0.364; left: p = 0.004, d = 0.378). Post-hoc analyses confirmed that the greatest pressure increases post-fatigue occurred in Groups A and B (<12 months’ post-op), particularly in medial heel and forefoot regions.
 
Conclusion
Individuals with ACL reconstruction and concomitant pronated foot posture demonstrate significantly elevated and abnormally distributed plantar pressures during static standing, particularly under fatigued conditions and within the first 12 months’ post-surgery. The most critical period appears to be the first six months, where medial heel and forefoot loading increases dramatically with fatigue, signaling profound neuromuscular instability and compensatory strategies.
 
Article Message
It appears that individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and pronated feet, particularly during the early stages of rehabilitation (less than 12 months’ post-surgery), experience a significant increase in plantar pressure under fatigued conditions, indicating greater postural instability and improper load distribution across the foot highlighting the critical need for fatigue-resilient, foot-targeted rehabilitation strategies.
 
 
Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained (IR.UMA.REC.1404.019), and written informed consent was secured from all participants.
 
Authors’ Contributions
Conceptualization: AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero
Data Collection: Ebrahim Piri
Data Analysis: Ebrahim Piri
Manuscript Writing: Ebrahim Piri
Review and Editing: AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero and Ebrahim Piri
Responsible for funding: AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero
Literature Review: Mahrokh Dehghani and Afsaneh Enteshari-Moghaddam
Project Manager: AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero
Conflict of Interest
According to the authors, this article has no conflicts of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
The researchers sincerely appreciate all the participants, instructors, and managers who collaborated in the implementation of this research program.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Pronated Feet
Plantar Pressure
Static Posture
 
1.     Kember LS, Riehm CD, Schille A, Slaton JA, Oliver JL, Myer GD, et al. Kinetics during the tuck jump assessment and biomechanical deficits in female athletes 12 Months after ACLR surgery. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025;53(2):333-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241308579
2.     Jafarnezhadgero AA, Alizadeh R, Mirzanag EF, Dionisio VC. Could the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and pronated feet affect the plantar pressure variables and muscular activity during running? A comparative study. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2024;40:986-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.07.020
3.     Grindem H, Snyder-Mackler L, Moksnes H, Engebretsen L, Risberg MA. Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50(13):804-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031
4.     Jafarnezhadgero A, Fatollahi A, Amirzadeh N, Siahkouhian M, Granacher U. Ground reaction forces and muscle activity while walking on sand versus stable ground in individuals with pronated feet compared with healthy controls. PloS One. 2019;14(9):e0223219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223219
5.     Dolk DC, Hedevik H, Stigson H, Wretenberg P, Kvist J, Stålman A. Nationwide incidence of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in higher-level athletes in Sweden: a cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry linked to six sports organisations. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025;59(7):470-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108343
6.     koreili z, Fatahi A, Azarbayjani MA, Sharifnezhad A. Comparison of Static Balance performance and plantar selected parameters in dominant and non-dominant leg Active Female Adolescents with ankle pro-nation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2021; 12(2):306-19. https://doi.org/10.32598/SJRM.12.2.7
7.     Piri E, Jafarnezhadgero A, Stålman A. Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Surgical Grafts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: A Letter to the Editor. Journal of Sport Biomechanics. 2024;10(3):254-60. https://doi.org/10.61186/JSportBiomech.10.3.254
8.     Cristiani R, Forssblad M, Edman G, Eriksson K, Stålman A. Age, time from injury to surgery and hop performance after primary ACLR affect the risk of contralateral ACLR. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2022;30(5):1828-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06759-6
9.     Pfeiffer TR, Burnham JM, Hughes JD, Kanakamedala AC, Herbst E, Popchak A, et al. An increased lateral femoral condyle ratio is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament injury. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2018;100(10):857-64. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01011
10.   Naderi A, Baloochi R, Rostami KD, Fourchet F, Degens H. Obesity and foot muscle strength are associated with high dynamic plantar pressure during running. The Foot. 2020;44:101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2020.101683
11.   Behrens M, Gube M, Chaabene H, Prieske O, Zenon A, Broscheid K-C, et al. Fatigue and human performance: an updated framework. Sports Medicine. 2023;53(1):7-31. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01748-2
12.   Cifrek M, Medved V, Tonković S, Ostojić S. Surface EMG based muscle fatigue evaluation in biomechanics. Clinical Biomechanics. 2009;24(4):327-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.01.010
13.   Liu Z, Yang C, Yu J, Zhao X, Wu J, Zhang Y, et al. The effect of muscles fatigue on the knee’s kinetics and kinematics characteristics. Sustainability. 2023;15(4):3029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043029
14.   Jones D. Muscle fatigue due to changes beyond the neuromuscular junction. Human Muscle Fatigue: Physiological Mechanisms. 1981;1981:178-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470715420.ch11
15.   Gerlach KE, White SC, Burton HW, Dorn JM, Leddy JJ, Horvath PJ. Kinetic changes with fatigue and relationship to injury in female runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2005;37(4):657-63. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000158994.29358.71
16.   Schilling J, Gragston B, Dunlavey B, Ko J. The effect of a short foot eccentric endurance exercise on foot center of pressure: a pilot study. Exercise Science. 2021;30(3):303-8. https://doi.org/10.15857/ksep.2021.30.3.303
17.   Barton CJ, Bonanno D, Carr J, Neal B, Malliaras P, Franklyn-Miller A, et al. Running retraining to treat lower limb injuries: a mixed-methods study of current evidence synthesised with expert opinion. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50(9):513-26. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095278
18.   Yip CHT, Chiu TTW, Poon ATK. The relationship between head posture and severity and disability of patients with neck pain. Manual Therapy. 2008;13(2):148-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2006.11.002
19.   Teixeira LA, de Oliveira DL, Romano RG, Correa SC. Leg preference and interlateral asymmetry of balance stability in soccer players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2011;82(1):21-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599718
20.   Association WM. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2001;79(4):373.
21.   McWalter EJ, Cibere J, MacIntyre NJ, Nicolaou S, Schulzer M, Wilson DR. Relationship between varus-valgus alignment and patellar kinematics in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2007;89(12):2723-31. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01016
22.   Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Physical Therapy. 2000;80(9):864-71.
23.   Farzaneh Herabad N, Anbarian M, Rahbar S. The Effects of Foot Structures on Plantar Pressure Characteristics in Overweight Girls Aged 10-13 Years During Walking. Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation. 2024;12(4):14-25. https://doi.org/10.22038/JPSR.2024.69912.2458
24.   Piri E, Barghamadi M, Farzizade R. Comparison of the Effects of Immediate and Long-Term Water and Thera band Exercises on Loading Rate, Impulse, and Free Moment in People with Pronate Foot during Walking: A Clinical Trial. Journal of Gorgan University of Medical Sciences. 2022;24(4):10-9.
25.   Borg G. Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1998.
26.   Koblbauer IF, van Schooten KS, Verhagen EA, van Dieën JH. Kinematic changes during running-induced fatigue and relations with core endurance in novice runners. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2014;17(4):419-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.05.013
27.   Cohen J. editor. Quantitative methods in psychology: a power primer. Psychological Bulletin; 1992: Citeseer.
28.   Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA. Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2011;45(7):596-606. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364
29.   Powers CM. The influence of abnormal hip mechanics on knee injury: a biomechanical perspective. Journal of orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2010;40(2):42-51. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2010.3337
30.   Gribble PA, Hertel J, Denegar CR, Buckley WE. The effects of fatigue and chronic ankle instability on dynamic postural control. Journal of Athletic Training. 2004;39(4):321.
دوره 17، شماره 46
زمستان 1404
صفحه 79-100

  • تاریخ دریافت 18 شهریور 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 20 آذر 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 22 دی 1404