Footprin evaluations by a new baropodometric platform in young basket and soccer athletes

Introduction: Our study was developed by comparing young athletes belonging to two team sports such as football and basketball, with the aim of verifying the possible different distribution of body weight on the two lower limbs. At the same time we went in search of possible conditions of hypo / hyperload on the two parts into which the breech support can be divided, that is the forefoot and the rear foot.

Materials and methods: Slide 3 shows the photos of the teams partly representative of the two populations tested; the subjects enrolled for the study come from the youth sectors of two sports clubs in the city of Barletta such as SS Barletta Calcio and ASD Cestistica Barletta, militants respectively in the LEGAPRO national championship – 1st division and Lega Nazionale Professionisti – DNC. Slide 4 summarizes the data characterizing the two samples analyzed and, as can be seen, both are quite homogeneous and validly comparable. (slide 5) The survey was conducted by subjecting all 88 athletes to a static baropodometric examination, using a platform made by Sensor Medica in Rome (model freeMed 40 × 40), while the analysis of the footprints was carried out using the software Free Step.

The subjects were tested being without footwear and at rest, that is, before the start of the respective training session and this, as we will see in the conclusions, constitutes in our opinion a data of particular importance.

The static baropodometric examination (slide 6) consists in recording the plantar pressures in orthostasis, providing their values in color. The patient gets on the platform (with bare feet or with shoes), and remains there for 5-10 ”. The support is then displayed after having calculated the average of the oscillations during the acquisition time.

The bipodal support (slide 7) shows the plantar pressures exerted by the patient in 10 levels to highlight the different load intensities as a percentage of the maximum pressure represented by the point of maximum load M (gr / cm2). The percentages of load expressed by the pressure points are quantified by a chromatic scale.

Regarding the distribution of loads between the two limbs and the retro / forefoot mean, slide 8 provides sufficient information.

Results: Slides 9 and 10 are substantially the mirror of each other as they describe the results obtained regarding the distribution of body weight on the two lower limbs.

Considering as “normal” the condition characterized by the finding of an overall weight equally divided between right and left (50% per side) and admitting a tolerance limit of +/- 5%, three distribution bands are obtained, such as hypocarial (35-44%) , normocaric (45-55%) and hyperload (56-65%).

Based on this premise, the data that emerged shows that in both cases a fair majority (30 for each of the two groups) has a distribution of body weight substantially within the normal limits (45-55%).

Very interesting seem to be the results that derive from the observation of the other slides in which the way in which the load is variously distributed on the single breech support between the forefoot and the hindfoot is analyzed.

First of all, it should be specified that in “normal” conditions, being athletes, the distribution between the two halves of the foot should be 45% in front and 55%, admitting a tolerance, also in this case, of +/- 5%.

Slide 11 refers to the analysis performed on the right forefoot. As a result of the previous premise we have obtained three groups into which to divide the results, namely hypocaric (35-39%), normocaric (40-50%) and hyperload (51-80%). The totals of the two populations analyzed do not correspond to 44 since subjects with excessive hypo / hyperload were excluded.

The figure that most stands out is the clear displacement of the load forward, or towards the forefoot among the players (25 out of 39), while equally worthy of consideration is the result of “normality” (20 out of 42) concerning the basketball players.

Moving on to slide 12, relating to the study of the left forefoot, we can still see the tendency to shift the load forward, this time also among basketball players (20 out of 40), although it is even more clear among footballers (21 out of 35).

As regards the analysis of the rear foot, it is appropriate to specify how the normal value is 55%, admitting a tolerance of +/- 5%, therefore three different categories have been obtained, for the hypocarial (45-49%), normo-load (50 -60%) and hyperload (61-80%).

Slides 13 and 14 refer to the two rear feet and therefore are in some ways the opposite of the corresponding forefoot; the “normality” of the feedback concerning both rear feet of the basketball players stands out (20 on 29 on the right and 17 on 31 on the left).

Conclusions: Observing the data leads to some considerations:

1. Preservation of equivalent load distribution on the two lower limbs in both sports;
2. Tendency to put forward the load on each of the two feet in both sports;

The finding of a generalized “forward” displacement of the load takes on particular importance if we consider how the investigations were carried out through a static baropodometric examination, thus suggesting that in the case of a dynamic examination we can witness a further accentuation of the anteposition.