扁平足是常見的兒童足部問題，本研究目的為調查台灣兒童扁平足盛行率、建立人體計測資料庫和評估矯正鞋墊對於扁平足兒童在生理和心理反應之影響。
本研究分成兩個階段進行。第一階段招募1024位兒童參與足部篩檢與人體計測等實驗，藉由三次元人體測量儀、數位捲尺和足印採集器來收集足部尺寸資料，並透過專業醫生來進行足部問題診斷。其研究結果指出扁平足盛行率隨著年齡的增加而逐漸下降，平均年齡5至13歲兒童的盛行率約28%，且男孩(35%)的盛行率高於女孩(20%)。此外，兒童過重及肥胖的比率約為20%，且肥胖的兒童具有較高的扁平足盛行率、較大的足部尺寸以及較小的足寬站坐改變量。而扁平足的兒童則是具有較低的足部高度尺寸和較大的足長站坐改變量。
第二階段的研究在於了解不同矯正鞋具的設計對於扁平足兒童在下肢運動學、動力學、肌肉活動度和主觀心理感受等反應的影響。本研究將21位受試者(5至11歲)分為實驗組和對照組，實驗組為9位扁平足兒童(足弓指標大於3)，對照組為12位正常足兒童。在實驗組合方面，實驗組須進行四項實驗組合，分別為赤腳、穿鞋、穿SMO (Supra-Malleolar Orthosis) 和穿UCBL (University of California Biomechanics Laboratory) 鞋墊；對照組則進行赤腳和穿鞋兩項實驗組合。
研究結果顯示扁平足兒童在行走時具有較大的關節角度變化、較高的肌肉活動度、較低的垂直地面反作用力和較晚的垂直和內外地面反作用力第一波峰出現時間。在矯正鞋墊評估方面，SMO和UCBL皆能減少膝關節和踝關節變化角度、降低脛前肌的肌肉活動度和提早內外地面反作用力第一波峰出現時間。此外，SMO更具有減少髖關節和增加垂直地面反作用力的功能。本研究結果指出，雖然SMO具有較多的改善功效，但卻容易造成較高的不舒適度，因此，若能改善SMO的舒適性，將會更有助於扁平足患者的穿戴和行走。

Flatfoot is one of the most common foot pathology for children. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of flatfoot for Taiwanese children, the anthropometric database of children with and without flatfoot, as well as the effect of the two different types of commonly used orthoses on objective and subjective responses.
Two experiments are included. In the first stage, the prevalence of flatfoot and the anthropometric database of school children in Taiwan have been established. A total of 1024 school children (549 boys and 475 girls) with age 5 to 13 years old participated in this study. Fifteen foot dimensions were measured using a 3D coordinate measuring probe, digital tape measure and Harris mat imprint. The results show that the prevalence of flatfoot for 5 to 13 years old children was 28% with a decreasing trend with age. The prevalence of flatfoot was 35% in boys and 20% in girls. The percent of overweight and obese children was 20%. Obese children have a higher frequency of flatfoot, greater foot dimensions, and less change in foot breadth between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing conditions than normal weight children. Children with flatfoot have lower foot height and greater foot length change than children with normal feet.
In the second stage, through the laboratory experiments, the effect of different orthotic design on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity of lower extremity, as well as the rating of perceived exertion were evaluated. Two groups of children with age of 5 to 11 years old were recruited: nine children with flatfoot (arch index above 0.3) and twelve children with normal foot. Flatfoot group has four experiment conditions: the barefoot, shoe-only, Supra-Malleolar Orthosis (SMO), and University of California Biomechanics Laboratory (UCBL) orthosis conditions; while normal foot group has only two experiment conditions: barefoot and shoe-only conditions.
The findings show that children with flatfoot tend to walk with the greater joint motions and higher muscle activities of lower extremity, as well as lower vertical ground reaction force (GRF) and longer durations of the first peak forces of vertical and medical-lateral GRFs than those of normal foot children. For the orthotic evaluation, the results indicate that both the SMO and UCBL orthoses can successfully reduce the joint motion of knee and ankle, the mean muscle activity of tibialis anterior, as well as facilitate the occurrence of the first medial-lateral GRF. In addition, the SMO can further reduce the range of hip flexion and increase the vertical GRF. Although the SMO has more positive impact on gait performance than the UCBL orthosis, but it will cause higher discomfort in ankle and lateral forefoot areas. Therefore, the comfort of SMO should be improved, so that it would become more suitable for flatfoot children to use.

摘要 I
Abstract II
謝辭 IV
Table of contents V
Index of figures VIII
Index of tables IX
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivations 1
1.2 The objectives of this study 2
1.3 Organization 3
Chapter 2 Literature review 4
2.1 Background 4
2.1.1 Anatomy and functions of foot 4
2.1.2 Gait 5
2.2 Flatfoot 6
2.2.1 Definition of flatfoot 6
2.2.2 Flatfoot characteristics 7
2.2.3 Flatfoot treatments 9
2.3 Orthosis 10
2.3.1 University of California Biomechanics Laboratory orthosis 13
2.3.2 Supramalleolar orthosis 14
Chapter 3 Investigation of flatfoot prevalence 16
3.1 Background 16
3.2 Methods 18
3.2.1 Subjects 18
3.2.2 Apparatus 19
3.2.3 Experimental procedure 20
3.2.4 Experimental design 21
3.3 Results and discussions 23
3.3.1 Prevalence of flatfoot 23
3.3.2 Foot dimensions 27
3.3.3 Foot size between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing conditions 30
3.4 Summary 32
Chapter 4 The orthotic evaluation on gait performance 33
4.1 Background 33
4.2 Methods 36
4.2.1 Subjects 36
4.2.2 Footwear and orthoses 37
4.2.2.1 Footwear 37
4.2.2.2 Orthoses 38
4.2.3 Apparatus and environment layout 39
4.2.3.1 Motion capture system 40
4.2.3.2 Force plate 43
4.2.3.3 Electromyography system 45
4.2.3.4 Rating of perceived exertion 46
4.2.4 Experimental procedure 48
4.2.5 Statistical analysis 51
4.3 Results and discussions 52
4.3.1 The effects of flatfoot and shoe on the response measurements 53
4.3.1.1 Joint motion 53
4.3.1.2 Ground reaction force 58
4.3.1.3 Muscle activity 61
4.3.2 The gait difference between flatfoot children with the UCBL orthoses and normal foot children 63
4.3.2.1 Joint motion 64
4.3.2.2 Ground reaction force 65
4.3.2.3 Muscle activity 65
4.3.3 The gait difference between flatfoot children with the SMO and normal foot children 66
4.3.3.1 Joint motion 67
4.3.3.2 Ground reaction force 67
4.3.3.3 Muscle activity 68
4.3.4 The effect of orthotic design on the response measurements 69
4.4 Summary 71
Chapter 5 Conclusions 73
5.1 Conclusions 73
5.2 Future research 75
References 76

1. Agnew P, Raducanu Y. An algorithmic approach to evaluation of the flatfoot. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 17: 383-396, 2000.
2. Aharonson Z, Arcan M, Steinback TV. Foot-ground pressure pattern of flexible flatfoot in children, with and without correction of calcaneovalgus. Clin Orthop. 278: 177-82, 1992.
3. Augustin JF, Lin SS, Berberian WS, Johnson JE. Non-operative treatment of adult acquired flatfoot with the Arizona brace. Foot Ankle Clin. 8: 491-502, 2003.
4. Ayyappa E, Mohamed O. Clinical assessment of pathological gait. In Lusardi MM, Nielsen CC (eds), Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation, 2nd. St Louis, MO 63146, Saunders, 2007.
5. Bauer A, Speers D, Wening J. The effects of supramalleolar oethoses on the gait of children with excessive pronation associated with benign hypotonia. The 34th annual meeting and scientific symposium, American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Orlando, Florida, 2008.
6. Bordelon RL. Correction of hypermobile flatfoot in children by molded insert. Foot Ankle. 1: 143-150, 1980.
7. Catani F, Benedetti MG, Montanari P, Pignotti E, Ceccarelli F, Ghetti M, Giannini S. Functional evaluation of gait in children with flat foot. Gait Posture. 3: 287, 1995.
8. Catani F, Benedetti MG, Simoncini L, Giannini S, Leardini A, Bertani A, Cappello A. Flat foot functional evaluation using ground reaction forces. Gait Posture. 5: 149, 1997.
9. Campbell JW, Inman VT: Treatment of plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spurs with the UC-BL shoe insert. Orthot Pros. 31: 23, 1977.
10. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech. 20: 547-551, 1987.
11. Cheng JC, Leung SSF, Leung AKL, Guo X, Sher A, Mak AFK. Change of foot size with weight bearing. A study of 2829 children 3 to 18 years of age. Clin Orthop. 342: 123-131, 1997.
12. Chuckpaiwong B, Nunley JA, Mall NA, Queen RM. The effect of foot type on in-shoe plantar pressure during walking and running. Gait Posture. 28: 405-411, 2008.
13. Climent J, Sanchez J. Impact of the type of brace on the quality of life of adolescents with spine deformities. Spine. 24: 1903-1908, 1999.
14. Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH. Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international survey. Br Med J. 320: 1-6, 2000.
15. Dowling AM, Steele JR, Baur LA. Does obesity influence foot structure and plantar pressure patterns in prepubescent children? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 25: 845-852, 2001.
16. 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. J Pediatr Orthop B. 12: 141-146, 2003.
17. Fessler DMT, Haley KJ, Roshni DL. Sexual dimorphism in foot length proportionate to stature. Ann Hum Biol. 32: 44-59, 2005.
18. Frey C, Zamora J. The effects of obesity on orthopaedic foot and ankle pathology. Foot Ankle Int. 28: 996-999, 2007.
19. Giladi M, Milgrom C, Stein M, Kashtan H, Margulies J, Chisin R. The low arch, a protective factor in stress fractures. Orthop Rev. 14: 709-712, 1985.
20. Gray EG, Basmajian JV. Electromyography and cinematography of leg and foot ("normal" and flat) during walking. Anat Rec. 161: 1-16, 1968.
21. Greisberg J, Hansen ST, Sangeorzan B. Deformity and degeneration in the hindfoot and midfoot joints of the adult acquired flatfoot. Foot Ankle Int. 24: 530-534, 2003.
22. Hall JG, Froster-Iskenius UG, Allanson JE. Handbook of normal physical measurements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989.
23. Helfet AJ, Lee DMG. Disorders of the foot. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1980.
24. Henderson WH, Campbell JW. UC-BL insert casting and fabrication. Bull Pros Res. 10: 149, 1971.
25. Hreljac A, Marshall RN, Hume PA. Evaluation of lower extremity overuse injury potential in runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 32: 1635-1641, 2000.
26. Hovorka CF, Geil MD, Lusardi MM. Principles influencing orthotic and prosthetic design: biomechanics, device-user interface, and related concepts. In Lusardi MM, Nielsen CC (eds), Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation, 2nd. St Louis, MO 63146, Saunders, 2007.
27. Hunt AE, Smith RM. Mechanics and control of the flat versus normal foot during the stance phase of walking. Clin Biomech. 19: 391-397, 2004.
28. Hunt AE, Smith RM, Torode M. Extrinsic muscle activity, foot motion and ankle joint moments during the stance phase of walking. Foot Ankle Int. 22: 31-41, 2001.
29. Hylton NM. Postural and functional impact of dynamic AFOs and FOs in a pediatric population. J Pros Orthot. 2: 40-53, 1989.
30. Imhauser CW, Abidi NA, Frankel DZ, Gavin K, Siegler S. Biomechanical evaluation of the efficacy of external stabilizers in the conservative treatment of acquired flatfoot deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 23: 727-737, 2002.
31. Inman VT. Dual axis ankle control systems and the UCBL shoe insert: biomechanical considerations. Bull Prosthet Res. 10-11: 130-146, 1969.
32. Jordan K, Challis JH, Newell KM. Walking speed influences on gait cycle variability. Gait Posture. 26: 128-134, 2007.
33. Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Cila E. Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop. 21: 225-228, 2001.
34. Komi P, Gollhofer A, Schmidtbleicher D, Frick U. Interaction between man and shoe in running: consideration for a more comprehensive measurement approach. Int J Sports Med. 8: 196-202, 1987.
35. Kuhn DR, Shibley NJ, Austin WM, Yochum TR. Radiographic evaluation of weight-bearing orthotics and their effect on flexible pes planus. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 22: 221-222, 1999.
36. Kulcu DG, Yavuzer G, Sarmer S, Ergin S. Immediate effects of silicone insoles on gait pattern in patients with flexible flatfoot. Foot Ankle Int. 28: 1053-1055, 2007.
37. Ledoux WR, Hillstrom HJ. The distributed plantar vertical force of neutrally aligned and pes planus feet. Gait Posture. 15: 1-9, 2002.
38. Leung AKL, Mak AFT, Evans JH. Biomechanical gait evaluation of the immediate effect of orthotics treatment for flexible flat foot. Prosthet Orthot Int. 22: 25-34, 1998.
39. Lin CJ, Lai KA, Kuan TS, Chou YL. Correlating factors and clinical significance of flexible flatfoot in preschool children. J Pediatr Orthop. 21: 378-382, 2001.
40. Lin RS. Ankle-foot orthoses. In Lusardi MM, Nielsen CC (eds), Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation, 2nd. St Louis, MO 63146, Saunders, 2007.
41. Looper JE. The effect of treadmill training and supramalleolar orthoses on gait and upright play development in infants with Down syndrome. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 2008.
42. MacLean W, Green N, Pierre C, Pierre CB, Ray DC. Stress and coping with scoliosis. Psychological effects on adolescents and their families. J Ped Orthop. 9: 257-261, 1989.
43. Martin K. Effects of supramalleolar orthoses on postural stability in children with Down syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol. 46: 406-411, 2004.
44. Mauch M, Grau S, Krauss I. Influence of age, gender and body-mass-index on 3-D foot shape in children. Gait Posture. 20: s91, 2004.
45. McColloungh NC. Biomechanical analysis systems for orthotic prescription. In Bunch WH, Keagy R, Kritter AE, Kruger LM, Letts M, Lonstein JE, Marsolais EB, Matthews JG, Fedegana LR, Atlas of orthotics: biomechanical principles and application. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 1985.
46. Mereday C, Dolan CME, Lusskin R. Evaluation of the university of california biomechanics laboratory shoe insert in “flexible” pes planus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 82: 45-58, 1972.
47. Mickle KJ, Steele J, Munro BJ. The feet of overweight and obese young children: are they flat or fat? Obesity (Silver Spring). 14: 1949-1953, 2006.
48. Morrison SC, Durward BR, Watt GF, Donaldson MDC. The anthropometric foot structure of peripubescent children with excessive body mass. A cross-sectional study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 97: 366-370, 2007.
49. Murley GS, Landorf KB, Menz HB, Bird AR. Effect of foot posture, foot orthoses and footwear on lower limb muscle activity during walking and running: A systematic review. Gait Posture. 29: 172-187, 2009.
50. Myerson MS. Foot and ankle disorders. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co., 2000.
51. Nachbauer W, Nigg BM. Effects of arch height of the foot on ground reaction forces in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 24: 1264-1269, 1992.
52. Nawoczenski DA, Epler ME. Orthotics in functional rehabilitation of the lower limb. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1997.
53. Noguchi M. Development of gait in children. J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 60: 787-799, 1986. (In Japanese)
54. Oeffinger D, Brauch B, Cranfill S, Hisle C, Wynn C. Comparison of gait with and without shoes in children. Gait Posture. 9: 95-100, 1999.
55. Penneau K, Lutter LD, Winter ED. Pes planus: radiographic changes with foot orthoses and shoes. Foot Ankle 2: 299-303, 1982.
56. Pfeiffer KA., Pivarnik JM, Womock CJ, Reeves MJ, Malina RM. Reliability and validity of the Borg and OMNI RPE Scales in adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 34: 2057-2061, 2002.
57. Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M. Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics. 118: 634-639, 2006.
58. Rao UB, Joseph B. The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot: a survey of 2300 children. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 74: 525-527, 1992.
59. Razeghi M, Batt ME. Biomechanical analysis of the effect of orthotic shoe inserts. Sports Med. 29: 425-438, 2000.
60. Riddiford-Harland DL, Steele JR, Storlien LH. Does obesity influence foot structure in prepubescent children? Int J Obes. 24: 541-544, 2000.
61. Robertson RJ. Development of the perceived exertion knowledge base: An interdisciplinary process. Int J Sport Psychol. 32: 189-196, 2001.
62. Robertson RJ. Perceived exertion for practitioners: rating effort with the OMNI picture system. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
63. Romkes J, Rudmann C, Brunner R. Changes in gait and EMG when walking with the Masai Barefoot Technique. Clin Biomech. 21: 75-81, 2006.
64. Rose GK, Welton EA, Marshall T. The diagnosis of flat foot in the child. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 67: 71-78, 1985.
65. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA. Complexities of foot architecture as abase of support. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 21: 354-360, 1995.
66. Shurr DG, Michael JW. Methods, materials and mechanics. In Prosthetics and orthotics, 2nd ed. Norwalk CT: Appleton & Lange, 2002.
67. Simkin A, Leichter I, Giladi M, Stein M, Milgrom C. Combined effect of foot arch structure and an orthotic device on stress fractures. Foot Ankle. 10: 25-29, 1989.
68. Sobel E, Levitz SJ, Jones LS. Orthotic variants. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 87: 23-31, 1997.
69. Supan TJ, Hovorka CF. A review of thermoplastic ankle foot orthoses adjustments/replacements in young cerebral palsy and spina bifida patients. J Prosthet Orthot. 7: 15-22, 1995.
70. Staheli LT, Corbett M, Wyss C, King H. Lower-extremity rotational problems in children: Normal values to guide management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 67: 39-47, 1985.
71. Tiberio D. Pathomechanics of structural foot deformities. Phys Ther. 68: 1840-1849, 1988.
72. Twomey D. Performance differences between normal and low arched feet in 9-12 year old children. PhD dissertation, University of New South Wales, 2006.
73. Utter AC, Robertsonr RJ, Nieman DC, Kang JIE. Children’s OMNI Scale of perceived exertion: walking/running evaluation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34: 139-144, 2002.
74. Vaughan CL, Davis BL, O’Connor JC. Dynamics of human gait. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics, 1992.
75. Volpon, J. Footprint analysis during the growth period. J Pediatr Orthop. 14: 83-85, 1994.
76. von Tscharner V, Goepfert B, Nigg BM. Changes in EMG signals for the muscle tibialis anterior while running barefoot or with shoes resolved by non-linearly scaled wavelets. J Biomech. 36: 1169-1176, 2003.
77. Wenger DR, Leach J. Foot deformities in infants and children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 33: 1411-1427, 1986.
78. Wenger DR, Mauldin D, Speck G, Morgan D, Lieber RL. Corrective shoes and inserts as treatment for flexible flatfoot in infants and children. J Bone Joint Surg. 71: 800-810, 1989.
79. White SC, Tucker CA, Brangaccio JA, Lin HY. Relation of vertical ground reaction forces to walking speed. Gait Posture. 4: 167-208, 1996.
80. Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. J Appl Biomech. 17: 153-163, 2001.
81. Wolf S, Simon J, Patikas D, Schuster W. Foot motion in children shoes- A comparison of barefoot walking with shod walking in conventional and flexible shoes. Gait Posture. 27: 51-59, 2008.
82. Wunderlich RE, Cavanagh PR. Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 33: 605-611, 2001.
83. Yavuzer G, Sarmer S, Ergin S. Gait deviations of subjects with flexible flatfeet. Gait and Clinical Motion Analysis Society 8th Annual Meeting. Wilmington, USA, 2003.