In podiatric medicine, diagnosis of foot disorders is often merely based on tests of foot function in static conditions or on visual assessment of the patient's gait. There is a lack of tools for the analysis of foot type and for diagnosis of foot ailments. In fact, static footprints obtained via carbon paper imprint material have traditionally been used to determine the foot type or highlight foot regions presenting excessive plantar pressure, and the data currently available to podiatrists and orthotists on foot function during dynamic activities, such as walking or running, are scarce. The device presented in this paper aims to improve current foot diagnosis by providing an objective evaluation of foot function based on pedobarographic parameters recorded during walking. 23 healthy subjects (16 female, 7 males; age 35 ± 15 years; weight 65.3 ± 12.7; height 165 ± 7 cm) with different foot types volunteered in the study. Subjects' feet were visually inspected with a podoscope to assess the foot type. A tool, comprised of a 2304-sensor pressure plate (P-walk, BTS, Italy) and an ad-hoc software written in Matlab (The Mathworks, US), was used to estimate plantar foot morphology and functional parameters from plantar pressure data. Foot dimensions and arch-index, i.e. the ratio between midfoot and whole footprint area, were assessed against measurements obtained with a custom measurement rig and a laser-based foot scanner (iQube, Delcam, UK). The subjects were asked to walk along a 6m walkway instrumented with the pressure plate. In order to assess the tool capability to discriminate between the most typical walking patterns, each subject was asked to walk with the foot in forcibly pronated and supinated postures. Additionally, the pressure plate orientation was set to +15°, +30°, −15° and −30° with respect to the walkway main direction to assess the accuracy in measuring the foot progression angle (i.e. the angle between the foot axis and the direction of walk). At least 5 walking trials were recorded for each foot in each plate configuration and foot posture. The device allowed to estimate foot length with a maximum error of 5% and foot breadth with an error of 1%. As expected, the arch-index estimated by the device was the lowest in the cavus-feet group (0.12 ± 0.04) and the highest in the flat-feet group (0.29 ± 0.03). These values were between 4 – 10 % lower than the same measurements obtained with the foot scanner. The centre of pressure excursion index [1] was the lowest in the forcibly-pronated foot and the largest in the supinated foot. While the pressure plate used here has some limitations in terms of spatial resolution and sensor technology [2], the tool appears capable to provide information on foot morphology and foot function with satisfying accuracy. Patient's instrumental examination takes only few minutes and the data can be used by podiatrists to improve the diagnosis of foot ailments, and by orthotists to design or recommend the best orthotics to treat the foot condition

The incidence of wound complications after a hip or a knee replacement is well established, but there is no such data about foot/ankle surgery. Without this data it is difficult to compare performance between different care-providers. It is also difficult to benchmark services that could potentially be provided by a wide range of care providers (chiropodists, podiatrists, podiatric surgeons, general orthopaedic surgeons with a small foot/ankle practice, etc). Our aim was to establish the incidence of wound complications after foot/ankle surgery and provide a baseline for future comparison. Our study was done in two parts. First part was to conduct an opinion-survey of BOFAS members with a substantial foot/ankle practice, on wound complications from foot/ankle surgery in their own practice. Second part was to conduct a prospective study on the incidence of wound complications from our own foot/ankle practice. The study was registered as an audit and did not require ethical approval. All wound complications (skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, superficial and deep infections) were recorded prospectively. Record of such data was obtained by an independent observer, and from multiple sources, to avoid under-reporting. 60 % of the responders to our survey had a predominant foot/ankle practice (exclusive or at least 75 % of their practice was foot/ankle surgery) and were included for further analysis of their responses. A large majority of these responders (64%) reported a rate of 2–5 % for superficial infection, and a significant majority (86 %) reported a deep infection rate of less than 2 %. Results from our own practice showed an incidence of superficial infection of 2.8 % and deep infection of 1.5 %. With increasing focus on clinical outcome measures as an indicator of quality, it is imperative to publish data on wound complications/ infection after foot/ankle surgery, and in the absence of such data, our two-armed study (survey-opinion and prospective audit) provides a useful benchmark for future comparisons