Effect of Medial Longitudinal Arch Height of the Foot on Static and Dynamic Balance in 7-10-Year-Old Boy Gymnasts

Abstract

Objectives: This research aims to investigate the relationship between the height of the internal longitudinal arch of the foot and the static and dynamic balance of 7 -10-year-old boy gymnasts.Methods: This study was descriptive-correlational, and its statistical population included male gymnast students aged 7 to 10 in the city of Gouchan. These gymnasts were screened for flat feet using the Brady test. Ninety gymnasts were purposefully selected based on the Brody test to assess the arch of the foot and were divided into three groups: pronation (n=30), supination (n=30), and normal (n=30). The Flamingo test assessed static balance, and the Y Balance test assessed dynamic balance. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check the normality of data distribution, and a one-way analysis of variance was employed to compare the results obtained among the groups. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 21).Results: The results showed a significant difference between static and dynamic balance in male gymnasts with pronation, supination, and natural foot conditions (P=0.001 and P=0.013, respectively). The results demonstrated no significant difference in static balance between gymnastic boys with pronation and suspension (P=0.930); however, there was a significant difference in static balance between gymnastic boys with suspension and those with a natural state (P=0.0001) and between gymnastic boys with pronation and those with a natural state of the foot (P=0.001).Conclusion: Based on the results, gymnastic boys with different arch heights (pronated, supinated, natural) showed static and dynamic balance variations. Boys with pronated or supinated feet had poorer static and dynamic balance than those with natural arches. Based on these results, coaches and corrective movement specialists can help boy gymnasts with different arch heights to optimize their balance performance and reduce the risk of injury. Level of evidence: II