1.School of Kinesiology,Shanghai University of Sport;2.Department of Rehabilitation Science,Tongji University School of Medicine;3.Shanghai Yangzhi Rehabilitation Hospital (Shanghai Sunshine Rehabilitation Center);4.Shanghai Yangzhi Rehabilitation Hospital (Shanghai Sunshine Rehabilitation Center )
目的 探究踝关节不同侧肢体和不同应力位的足底压力分布特点。方法 23名健康受试者通过简易定制走道和足底压力测试平板进行踝中立位、踝内翻、踝外翻的足底压力测试，测试指标为峰值压强、接触面积、接触时间百分比、M/L（足底内侧峰值压力之和与外侧峰值压力之和的比值）、A/P（足趾峰值压力之和与足跟峰值压力的比值）。结果 （1）优势腿在第一跖骨的峰值压强明显大于非优势侧，第五跖骨峰值压强明显小于非优势侧。优势侧M/L显著大于非优势侧。（2）除中足、第一趾，其余区域三种应力位的峰值压强存在显著性差异。内翻时各区域的接触时间百分比均大于中立时，外翻时除第二趾其余区域的接触时间百分比大于中立时。内翻、中立、外翻的M/L分别为1.24±0.46、1.06±0.26、0.88±0.25；内翻时优势侧M/L大于非优势侧；内、外翻时A/P均大于中立。结论 优势侧踝关节稳定性优于非优势侧。踝关节内翻、外翻时稳定性有所下降。内翻时身体往前、内侧偏移，外翻时则往前、外侧偏移以维持稳定。
Objective To explore the plantar pressure of limb laterality and different positions of ankle joint. Methods 23 healthy subjects were recruited to perform walking trails. Each subject was tested for plantar pressure in ankle neutral position, ankle inversion and ankle eversion through simple custom-designed walkways and plantar pressure plate. The evaluation indexes were peak pressure, contact area, contact time percentage, M/L (ratio of sum of medial plantar peak pressure to sum of lateral peak pressure), A/P (ratio of sum of toe peak pressure to heel peak pressure). Results (1)The peak pressure of the first metatarsus bone in the dominant foot was significantly larger than that in the non-dominant foot, the peak pressure of the fifth metatarsus bone was significantly smaller than that on the non-dominant foot.. The M/L of dominant side was significantly larger than that of the non-dominant side. (2)Except for peak pressures of mid-foot and the first toe, there were significant differences in other regions among the three ankle positions. The percentage of contact time in each area during inversion was greater than neutral position, and the percentage of contact time of plantar regions during eversion were longer than those of neutral position except the second toe. The M/L of inversion, neutral and eversion position were 1.24±0.46, 1.06±0.26, 0.88±0.25. The M/L of dominant foot was greater than the non-dominant foot; the A/P in the inversion and eversion conditions were greater than that in the neutral positions. Conclusions The stability of the dominant foot was better than that of the non-dominant foot. The standing stability was decreased during inversion and eversion. During inversion, the body shifted inward and forward to maintain stability. During eversion, the center of gravity shifted outward and forward.