Flexible flatfoot is the most common posture deformity among children. There are many diagnostic techniques to identify it, from clinical observation to measurements and imaging techniques, both in static and in dynamic conditions, but their reliability, validity, and accuracy are still unproven. The static and dynamic conditions differ; thus, the aim was to compare the results of the evaluation of flatfeet in 50 children (5-9 years of age) in both conditions: standing versus gait. Static evaluation. Comparison of the footprints (Harris and Beath pedograph) with the Clarke’s footprinting graphics. Dynamic evaluation. On the same day, all children underwent pedobarography during gait. Geometric measures of the feet (midfoot width, instep width, instep, foot width) were calculated together with the Arch Index. In the static condition, 87 of 100 were classified as a flatfoot, whereas during walking, there were just 56 feet classified as flat. So 35 feet classified on the basis of the clinical examination and Clarke’s footprint chart as flatfeet, according to the Arch Index calculated during walking were not flat, and 4 feet classified on the basis of Clarke’s footprint chart as normal according to the Arch Index were flat. Levels of Evidence: Prospective cohort study

Aim of the study was to see how a definition of the flexible flat foot (FFF) influences the results of gait evaluation in a group of 49 children with clinically established FFF. Objective gait analysis was performed using VICON system with Kistler force platforms. The gait parameters were compared between healthy feet and FFF using two classifications: in static and dynamic conditions. In static condition, the ink footprints with Clarke’s graphics were used for classification, and in dynamic condition, the Arch Index from Emed pedobarograph while walking was used for classification. When the type of the foot was based on Clarke’s graphics, no statistically significant differences were found. When the division was done according to the Arch Index, statistically significant differences between flat feet and normal feet groups were found for normalized gait speed, normalized cadence, pelvic rotation, ankle range of motion in sagittal plane, range of motion of foot progression, and two parameters of a vertical component of the ground reaction force: FZ2 (middle of stance phase) and FZ3 (push-off). Some statically flat feet function well during walking due to dynamic correction mechanisms.

The aim was to find if foot orthotics alone can improve flat feet in children and analyze how the addition of Zukunft-Huber manual therapy and corrective bandaging changes the outcome. Forty-nine children aged 5 to 10 with asymptomatic flexible flat feet were divided into 2 groups. The first was treated with foot orthoses alone, in the second wearing foot orthoses was supplemented with Zukunft-Huber manual therapy and corrective bandaging. Pedobarography during gait was performed before the therapy and after a year. In the first group decrease in arch index, width, force, and area of midfoot, increase in force MH2 and area hindfoot was found, in the second decrease in arch index, width, force, and area of midfoot, increase in force under metatarsal head second, third, fourth, and fifth, area metatarsal head fourth and area hindfoot. Both methods showed positive changes, but foot orthoses with additional intervention were more effective.