Growing-up (habitually) barefoot influences the development of foot and arch morphology in children and adolescents

Karsten Hollander, Johanna Elsabe de Villiers, Susanne Sehner, Karl Wegscheider, Klaus-Michael Braumann, Ranel Venter, Astrid Zech, Karsten Hollander, Johanna Elsabe de Villiers, Susanne Sehner, Karl Wegscheider, Klaus-Michael Braumann, Ranel Venter, Astrid Zech

Abstract

The development of the human foot is crucial for motor learning in children and adolescents as it ensures the basic requirements for bipedal locomotion and stable standing. Although there is an ongoing debate of the advantages and disadvantages of early and permanent footwear use, the influence of regular barefootness on foot characteristics in different stages of child development has not been extensively evaluated. A multicenter epidemiological study was conducted to compare the foot morphology between habitually barefoot children and adolescents (N = 810) to age-, sex- and ethnicity-matched counterparts that are used to wearing shoes. While controlling for confounders, we found that habitual footwear use has significant effects on foot-related outcomes in all age groups, such as a reduction in foot arch and hallux angles. The results indicate an impact of habitual footwear use on the development of the feet of children and adolescents. Therefore, growing up barefoot or shod may play an important role for childhood foot development, implying long-term consequences for motor learning and health later in life.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagram showing the flow of participants through the study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forrest plots depicting confounder effects estimates for hallux angle, dynamic foot arch index, static arch height index and pliability ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Marginal effects of habitual barefoot vs. habitually shod children by age in stages of development showing estimated means and 95%CI for foot length, foot width, hallux angle, static arch height index, dynamic arch index and pliability ratio.

References

    1. Lieberman DE. What we can learn about running from barefoot running: an evolutionary medical perspective. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2012;40:63–72. doi: 10.1097/JES.0b013e31824ab210.
    1. Tam N, Astephen Wilson JL, Noakes TD, Tucker R. Barefoot running: an evaluation of current hypothesis, future research and clinical applications. British journal of sports medicine. 2014;48:349–355. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092404.
    1. Perkins KP, Hanney WJ, Rothschild CE. The risks and benefits of running barefoot or in minimalist shoes: a systematic review. Sports Health. 2014;6:475–480. doi: 10.1177/1941738114546846.
    1. Hollander K, Heidt C, Van Der Zwaard B, Braumann KM, Zech A. Long-Term Effects of Habitual Barefoot Running and Walking: A Systematic Review. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2017;49:752–762. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001141.
    1. Hoffmann P. Conclusions drawn from a comparative study of the feet of barefooted and shoe-wearing peoples. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 1905;3(2):105–136.
    1. Kadambande S, Khurana A, Debnath U, Bansal M, Hariharan K. Comparative anthropometric analysis of shod and unshod feet. The Foot. 2006;16:188–191. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2006.06.001.
    1. Shu Y, et al. Foot Morphological Difference between Habitually Shod and Unshod Runners. PloS one. 2015;10:e0131385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131385.
    1. D’Août K, Pataky TC, De Clercq D, Aerts P. The effects of habitual footwear use: foot shape and function in native barefoot walkers. Footwear Science. 2009;1:81–94. doi: 10.1080/19424280903386411.
    1. Echarri JJ, Forriol F. The development in footprint morphology in 1851 Congolese children from urban and rural areas, and the relationship between this and wearing shoes. Journal of pediatric orthopedics. Part B. 2003;12:141–146.
    1. Arulsingh W, Pai G. A study of foot defects, deformities and diseases among shod and barefoot middle and long distance runners - cross sectional study. International Journal of Current Research and Review. 2015;6:15–23.
    1. Rao UB, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 2300 children. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:525–527.
    1. Mueller S, Carlsohn A, Mueller J, Baur H, Mayer F. Influence of Obesity on Foot Loading Characteristics in Gait for Children Aged 1 to 12 Years. PloS one. 2016;11:e0149924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149924.
    1. Truszczyńska-Baszak, A., Drzał-Grabiec, J., Rachwał, M., Chałubińska, D. & Janowska, E. Correlation of physical activity and fitness with arches of the foot in children. Biomedical Human Kinetics9, doi:10.1515/bhk-2017-0004 (2017).
    1. Castro-Aragon O, Vallurupalli S, Warner M, Panchbhavi V, Trevino S. Ethnic radiographic foot differences. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30:57–61. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0057.
    1. Muller S, Carlsohn A, Muller J, Baur H, Mayer F. Static and dynamic foot characteristics in children aged 1-13 years: a cross-sectional study. Gait Posture. 2012;35:389–394. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.10.357.
    1. Mickle KJ, Steele JR, Munro BJ. The feet of overweight and obese young children: are they flat or fat? Obesity. 2006;14:1949–1953. doi: 10.1038/oby.2006.227.
    1. von Elm E, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.
    1. Hollander K, et al. The effects of being habitually barefoot on foot mechanics and motor performance in children and adolescents aged 6-18 years: study protocol for a multicenter cross-sectional study (Barefoot LIFE project) Journal of foot and ankle research. 2016;9:36. doi: 10.1186/s13047-016-0166-1.
    1. Scholz, T. A. et al. Reliability and correlation of static and dynamic foot arch measurement in a healthy pediatric population. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, doi:10.7547/16-133 (2017).
    1. Oladeji O, Stackhouse C, Gracely E, Orlin M. Comparison of the two-step and midgait methods of plantar pressure measurement in children. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008;98:268–277.
    1. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. Journal of biomechanics. 1987;20:547–551. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90255-7.
    1. Donatelli, R. & Wolf, S. L. The Biomechanics of the Foot and Ankle. Ed. 2. edn, (F. A. Davis, 1996).
    1. Tong JW, Kong PW. Reliability of footprint geometric and plantar loading measurements in children using the Emed((R)) M system. Gait Posture. 2013;38:281–286. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.11.025.
    1. Kowalski, K., Crocker, P. & Donen, R. The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C) and Adolescents (PAQ-A) Manual., (College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan., 2004).
    1. Sacco IC, Onodera AN, Bosch K, Rosenbaum D. Comparisons of foot anthropometry and plantar arch indices between German and Brazilian children. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:4. doi: 10.1186/s12887-015-0321-z.
    1. Carr, J. B. 2nd, Yang, S. & Lather, L. A. Pediatric Pes Planus: A State-of-the-Art Review. Pediatrics137, e20151230, doi:10.1542/peds.2015–1230 (2016).
    1. Hollander K, Riebe D, Campe S, Braumann KM, Zech A. Effects of footwear on treadmill running biomechanics in preadolescent children. Gait Posture. 2014;40:381–385. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.05.006.
    1. Hollander K, Argubi-Wollesen A, Reer R, Zech A. Comparison of minimalist footwear strategies for simulating barefoot running: a randomized crossover study. PloS one. 2015;10:e0125880. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125880.
    1. Kelly, L. A., Lichtwark, G. A., Farris, D. J. & Cresswell, A. Shoes alter the spring-like function of the human foot during running. J R Soc Interface13, doi:10.1098/rsif.2016.0174 (2016).
    1. Vittore D, et al. Extensor deficiency: first cause of childhood flexible flat foot. Orthopedics. 2009;32:28. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20090101-26.
    1. Waseda A, Suda Y, Inokuchi S, Nishiwaki Y, Toyama Y. Standard growth of the foot arch in childhood and adolescence–derived from the measurement results of 10,155 children. Foot and ankle surgery: official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 2014;20:208–214. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2014.04.007.
    1. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 1987;69:426–428. doi: 10.2106/00004623-198769030-00014.
    1. Stavlas P, Grivas TB, Michas C, Vasiliadis E, Polyzois V. The evolution of foot morphology in children between 6 and 17 years of age: a cross-sectional study based on footprints in a Mediterranean population. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2005;44:424–428. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2005.07.023.
    1. Delemarre-van de Waal HA, van Coeverden SC, Rotteveel J. Hormonal determinants of pubertal growth. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2001;14(Suppl 6):1521–1526.
    1. Ashizawa K, Kumakura C, Kusumoto A, Narasaki S. Relative foot size and shape to general body size in Javanese, Filipinas and Japanese with special reference to habitual footwear types. Ann Hum Biol. 1997;24:117–129. doi: 10.1080/03014469700004862.
    1. Sachithanandam V, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 1846 skeletally mature persons. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume. 1995;77:254–257.
    1. Perera AM, Mason L, Stephens MM. The pathogenesis of hallux valgus. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 2011;93:1650–1661. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01630.
    1. Ker RF, Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RM. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature. 1987;325:147–149. doi: 10.1038/325147a0.
    1. Barnicot NA, Hardy RH. The position of the hallux in West Africans. Journal of anatomy. 1955;89:355–361.
    1. Klein C, Groll-Knapp E, Kundi M, Kinz W. Increased hallux angle in children and its association with insufficient length of footwear: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2009;10:159. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-10-159.
    1. Kilmartin TE, Wallace WA. The significance of pes planus in juvenile hallux valgus. Foot & ankle. 1992;13:53–56. doi: 10.1177/107110079201300201.
    1. Barisch-Fritz B, Plank C, Grau S. Evaluation of the rule-of-thumb: calculation of the toe allowance for developing feet. Footwear Science. 2016;8:119–127. doi: 10.1080/19424280.2016.1144654.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe