Skip to main content

Paediatric flat foot and foot dimension in Central Anatolia



Information on the foot structures of Central Anatolian children is limited. Foot structures of children aged 6–10 years were shown to be different according to sex and increasing age.


This study aimed to compare the foot anthropometric values by age and sex and collect the foot anthropometric data to reveal the relationship between pes planus and pes cavus in the arches of children according to age.


Footprints of 335 children (180 boys and 155 girls) aged 6–10 years were taken by the pedigraph method and evaluated using 18 different parameters. The TFL (Truncated foot length), FL (foot length), Arch Index, Chippaux Smirak Index, Staheli Arc Index, and foot rotation values of the children were examined. To examine the relationship between the parameters, normality values were examined. Independent samples t-test was used to analyze sex differences in terms of foot size and shape.


Correlations between other parameters were determined using the correlations analysis method. TFL, metatarsal circumference, and FL were strongly correlated with age in the children. Foot rotation increased with body mass index in the girls compared to that in the boys. According to the evaluation results with the classification made with the Staheli arch index, 63.3% pes planus, 9.8% pes cavus and 27.7% of the normal arch structure were identified.


Planning shoe production accordingly will contribute to the development of healthy feet in children. This article focused on foot structures of in Central Anatolia and to identify early foot deformities in children. This study found that the length of the TFL was smaller in boys than in girls.

Peer Review reports


Paediatric pes planus is described as decreasing of the medial longitudinal arch and has been researched distribution around the world for years [1]. Pes planus generally has two classification as flexible and fixed pes planus. Flexible pes planus becomes symptomatic or asymptomatic. Most of the symptomatic pes planus causes pain in the feet, problems in the proximal joints, and early fatigue during gait and decreases the quality of life [2,3,4]. Hindfoot can cause valgus position of flat foot. Pes planus is common in paediatric group and foot arches usually develop with age [5, 6]. Paediaetric flexible pes planus is common, affecting around 48 to 77.9% children [7, 8].

Pes cavus is defined as increasing in height of the medial longitudinal arch. The deformity does not corrected on weight bearing. Elevation of the medial longitudinal arch, forefoot pronation, valgus and adduction, clawing of the toes are typical in this deformity. Hindfoot is varus position and the foot most common causes pes cavovarus. The underlying cause of pes cavus is mostly neurological [9, 10].

When designing shoes for any age group, anthropometric data of that group is of great importance. The use of correct foot sizes improves one’s foot health and comfort. Shoes that do not fit the foot structure used at a young age can lead to permanent foot deformities. However, foot deformities that can be noticed at a young age can be eliminated before reaching the developmental period. Foot measurements can be taken by different methods. These are measuring with a caliper or tape measure, three-dimensional scanning, photographing, or foot-printing [11]. Foot prints are most used method evaluation foot morphology and footprint based measures of children’s feet may represent developmental pes planus, pes cavus and regular foot. The main instruments used to obtain footprints are ink imprints, optical podoscopes, baropodometry, pedography, digital photography, radiography, and platinum scanners. Three measurements are used for footprint diagnosis: Clarke’s angle, the Staheli index and the Chippaux-Smirak index [12]. This study focus on 6–10 years children and evaluate the three most commonly used footprint analysis methods for pes planus, pes cavus: the angle –based Staheli arch index, Arch Index and Chippaux Smirak Index.

When studies on a similar subject are examined, foot morphologies may vary between sexes and different populations. As a result, the data obtained in this study vary according to age and sex [13,14,15]. Using these data, designing shoes, which is unique to foot morphology, can be beneficial for children’s foot health.

Previous studies have determined the morphological dimensions of feet according to age groups in different nations. In Anatolia, there are studies from anthropological studies such as sex prediction made from adult foot structure when examined. In this study, we aimed to determine the foot dimensions of the 6–10-year-old children in Central Anatolia and to identify early foot deformities in children.

Materials and methods

This study included a sample group of 335 children (155 girls, 180 boys) aged between 6 and 10 years. The sample group consisted of children living in Central Anatolia, without any walking disorder and foot pathology. Approval was obtained from the ethical board committee of Ankara University of Medical Sciences Ethics Board, and informed consents were obtained from the families of the children included in the sampling before initiation of the study. Parents and children provided their written consent to participate.

Data were collected from 24 different measurements including the shoe size of the dominant foot, metatarsal circumference, TFL, and Staheli arch index. In addition, demographic data such as height, body weight, and body mass index of children were measured. The shoe types and sizes used by the children in the sample were subsequently determined.

To study the footprint by pedigraph, three footprint measurements were used: Chippaux–Smirak, Arch Index and Staheli index. These parameters are usually used to categorize the footprint as pes cavus, pes planus or normal foot. The footprints were obtained by placing a reticulated piece of rubber sheeting, tensed and impregnated with ink, between the subject’s foot and a piece of stretched paper. In order to get an accurate footprint, it was performed while the participants were sitting and then knee was flexed while the footprint was taken weight-bearing in standing position (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Pedigraph Methods

To determine the anthropometric dimensions of the foot, footprints were taken from the foot of the individuals using the pedigraph The TFL, FL, X (Arch width), Y (Midfoot width), S° (Clarks angle) [16], Arch Index (B / A + b + C), Chippaux Smirak Index (B / A * 100%) [17], Staheli Arc index [18], and foot rotation values of the children were examined (Fig. 2). (In addition, metatarsal circumference and oblique measurements were taken directly from the feet of children).

Fig. 2

Footprint taken by pedigraph method

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23.0. When comparing the parameters, the normality values were first examined. Then, the independent samples t-test was used to analyze sex differences in terms of foot size and shape. To understand the relationship between other parameters, correlations analysis (Spearman correlation) was performed (p < 0.05).

Staheli arc index was evaluated by forming seven different groups. The percentages of the participants were determined. Staheli arc index values between 0 and 19% were 3°; pes cavus, between 20 and 39% were 2°; pes cavus, between 40 and 59% were 1°; and pes cavus (Fig. 3), between 60 and 79% values as normal arc structure (Fig. 4), between 80 and 79% values as 1°, between 100 and 119% values as 2°, and 120% and above values as 3°. It was classified as pes planus and evaluated (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3

Arc height; (a) 1. o Pes Cavus, (b) 2. o Pes Cavus, (c) 3. o Pes Cavus

Fig. 4

Normal arc structure

Fig. 5

Arc drop; (a) 1. o Pes Planus, (b) 2. o Pes Planus, (c) 3. o Pes Planus


The participants of the study consisted of 335 children (155 girls and 180 boys) aged between 6 and 10 (average: 8) years living in Central Anatolia. The body weights of the participants were between 14,60–55,50 kg and their heights were between 96 and 152 cm (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic Data of Children

All descriptive statistics of the TFL (Truncated foot length), FL (foot length), Arch Index, Chippaux Smirak Index, Staheli Arc Index, X, Y, S°(Clarke angle), Metatarsal foot measurement (cm), Oblique foot measurement (cm) and foot rotation degree in boys and girl showed Tables 2 and 3. When the TFL values of the children were examined, the range was 11.50–19.80 cm, and the median was 15.5 cm. The normal distribution of the TFL values was found to be good. The range of the foot length was 14.12–24.89 cm, and the median was 19.28 cm. When the FL values were examined, the range was 14.00–25.50 cm, and the median was 19.2 cm; the values were found to be normally distributed. The range of the first metatarsal to ground distance was 0.83–3.80 cm, and the median value was 1.65 cm. When Chippaux Smirak index values were examined, the range was 0.00–1.01, and the median was 0.57.

Table 2 Data from Footprint Assessment
Table 3 Data obtained from feet

Further, the correlation (r = 0.177) between body mass index and foot rotation was found to be very weak.

When the correlation results of S value were analyzed, a weak correlation was observed between the S, Navicular ground distance and 1st Metatarsal ground distance. Additionally, a weak correlation (r = − 0.369) was found between the Chippaux Smirak index and Navicula to ground distance.

When the correlation analysis with other values of the Staheli Arc Index was examined, a weak correlation between the and navicula ground distance was observed.

A strong correlation (r = 0.795) was observed between the TFL and Metatarsal circumference, as well as between the TFL and oblique measurement (r = 0.848). Further, strong correlations were found between age and the TFL (r = 0.727), FL (r = 0.748), oblique measurement (r = 0.721), arc index (r = 0.717), shoe size (r = 0.723), and foot length (r = 0.650); however, the correlations between age and the 1st metatarsal to ground distance (r = 0.294), Chippaux Smirak Index (r = − 0.133), Staheli Arc Index (r = − 0.129), and foot rotation (r = − 0.030) were weak.

Foot length was strongly correlated with age (r = 0.736 for girls; r = 0.725 for boys). Foot length and height were strong correlated (r = 0.906 for girls; r = 0.887 for boys). Body weight and foot length of children were strongly correlated (r = 0.822 for girls; r = 0.836 for boys). There was a strong correlation between the metatarsal circumference measurements and foot length (r = 0.756 for girls; r = 0.817 for boys). The relationships between the oblique measure and foot height of children (r = 0.837 for girls; r = 0.858 for boys) and between the calculated arch index and foot length (r = 0.946 for girls; r = 0.946 for boys) were strong. It was determined that the foot height had a moderate relationship with the X angle (r = 0.695 for girls; r = 0.625 for boys). The distance of the medial malleolus to the ground was moderately related to the height of the foot (r = 0.526 for girls; r = 0.546 for boys).

A relationship was found between the metatarsal circumference and sex, which was stronger in the boys than in the girls (p = 0.18). No significant differences were observed between the sexes in terms of the 1st metatarsal to ground distance, TFL (p = 0.227), and foot length; however, there was a statistically significant difference in foot rotation between the sexes (P = 0.034), with girls having smaller foot rotation than boys.

According to the evaluation results with the classification made with the Staheli arch index, 0.30% of the sample was 3° pes cavus (1 individual [1 male]), 2.69% 2° pes cavus (9 individuals [1 male, 8 female]), 6.87% 1° pes cavus (23 individuals [9 boys, 14 girls]), 27.76% of the normal arch structure (93 individuals [48 boys, 45 girls]), 22.09% 1° pes planus (74 individuals [39 boys, 35 girls]), 17.70% 2° pes planus (66 individuals [37 boys, 29 girls]), and 20.60% 3° pes planus (69 individuals [45 boys, 24 girls]) were identified (Table 4).

Table 4 Arc classification distribution of children according to Staheli Arc Index

According to the data determined in the classification made via the Staheli arch index, pes cavus is more common in girls than in boys. However, pes planus is more common in boys than in girls. Based on the Staheli arc index, almost the same number of girls and boys had a normal arc structure.


This study evaluated the foot measurements of children living in Central Anatolia using different methods. The rate of increase in foot sizes of girls and boys aged between 6 and 10 years varied. When the measurements of boys and girls of the same age were examined, it was found that the length of the TFL was smaller in boys than in girls. The results in this study demonstrate correlation between TFL, FL, oblique foot measurements, Chippaux Smirak index, Arch index, Staheli Arc Index and age in Anatolian children. We observed that Chippaux Smirak index, Arch index, Staheli Arc Index decreases as age increases. Previous studies in which the prevalence of pes planus decreased with increasing age [19,20,21,22].

Foot length was strongly correlated with age, body weight and height In addition to there was a strong correlation between the metatarsal circumference measurements, oblique measurements, the calculated arch index and foot length. The result of that investigation showed that increases in foot length due to anthropometric development in 6–10 year-old children. Leung, Cheng and Mak analysed the effect of age on foot length in 4–18 years old, and gradual change in the 6–12-year-old cohort. Müller et al. observed that foot length and width increased with age at rate similar to in the observed present study [21].

In this study, FL values of Turkish children at different ages were examined. In this context, these were evaluated in different countries. Xu’s study also used data from Chinese children [23] . Delgado’s study included data of Spanish children [24]. Barisch’s [25] study included data of German children and Waseda’s [26] study included data from Japanese children. Data of Mexican children were included in Prado-Leon’s study [27]. In these studies, the age ranged from 6 to 12 years. In addition to the comparison, Bari’s study included boys aged 5 and 6 years [28]. The data are given in Fig. 6. According to this figure, we think that the foot length of Anatolian children may be closer to Asian children in terms of foot length.

Fig. 6

Distrubition of girls and boys FL values in different nations

The height of the navicular can be defined as the distance from the base of the medial projection of the navicular tuberosity to the ground. When the relationship between navicular height and age was examined, a low correlation was observed (r = 0.344 for girls; r = 0.354 for boys). Figure 7 shows the comparison of Turkish children with navicular height and Waseda’s (2014) study with Japanese children [26]. Some studies found that foot length was significantly associated with navicular height [29, 30]. Our study resulted that correlation between Chippaux Smirak index, Staheli Arc Index and navicular height.

Fig. 7

Navicular height of girls and boys in Turkish and Japanese children

The arc index value of Turkish children was also calculated and compared with that of children from other countries. In this context, the arch index values of German children were taken from Müller’s study [21]. The arch index values of children living in two different countries are given in Fig. 8. Hawes et al. and Shiang et al. also reported a significant cor relation between the arch index from inked footprint and the footprint index [31, 32].

Fig. 8

Arc index value of Turkish children and German children

The Chippaux Smirak index of Turkish children was examined by age [33]. Comparison of children with those from other nations has been made. Sacco’s [34] study obtained the values of Brazilian and German children. A comparison of Echarri’s [11] study with children in Congolese with Turkish children was made. The Chippaux Smirak indexes of children from four different countries are given in Fig. 9. Chippaux-Smirak index decreases up to age 11 in boys and 12 in girls [35]. This finding indicate that the physiological process of foot development from the low-arched types to normal types occurs, which is consistent with our result in age 10 year-old.

Fig. 9

Chippaux Smirak index of children four different countries

The Staheli Arc values of children were examined according to age [18]. However, the Staheli Arc values of Turkish children were compared with those of Brazilian, German, and Congolese children. Comparison of Staheli Arc values is given in Fig. 10. In the present study, the frequency of low ach type feet found in the youngest age groups decreased with age by Staheli index and Chippaux Smirak index, this is in accordance with earlier studies [33, 36]. In this study found that 62,3% pes planus, 9.8% pes cavus and 27.7% of the normal arch structure by classification made with the Staheli arch index. Ibeabuchi et al. showed that the overall percentage of subjects with flatfeet was 59 (13.53%) out of a total number of 436 ft analysed in 6–15-year-old Nigerian school children by classification made with the Staheli arch index [37].

Fig. 10

According to staheli arc index values in different nations

Our results that foot rotation increased with body mass index in the girls compared to that in the boys. The gradual ossification of bony structures may lead to better stabilization of the arch during weight bearing [38]. This result regarding that the ongoing external tibial rotation, from the in-toeing position after birth to the out-toeing position during growth, results in proportional decrease in the valgus configuration of the hindfoot and elevation of the MLA [39].

The data of the study varies according to the number of individuals participating in the sampling and the techniques used to measure the foot structure; therefore, increasing the sample size and the use of three-dimensional scanning system to analyze Central Anatolia different regions of the foot and arch structure is proposed.


This study aimed to determine the foot sizes and foot structures of children living in Central Anatolia. Foot structures of children aged 6–10 years were shown to be different according to sex and increasing age. Age, gender and body weight were associated with foot dimensions and pes planus diagnosis. According to classification made with the Staheli arch index, 63.3% pes planus, 9.8% pes cavus and 27.7% of the normal arch structure were identified in Anatolian child. The results of the study may be used as an important resource for shoe designers in terms of child foot health.

Availability of data and materials

All the data that support the findings of this study are contained within the manuscript. Any requests for additional data can be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author and with permission of Ethics Department of the University of Ankara.


  1. 1.

    Turner C, Gardiner MD, Midgley A, Stefanis A. A guide to the management of paediatric pes planus. Aust J Gen Pract. 2020;49(5):245–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Harris EJ, Vanore JV, Thomas JL, Kravitz SR, Stephen A. Mendelson, et al. diagnosis and treatment of pediatric flatfoot. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004;43(6):341–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Dars S, Uden H, Kumar S, Banwell HA. When, why and how foot orthoses (FOs) should be prescribed for children with flexible pes planus: a Delphi survey of podiatrists. PeerJ. 2018;16(6):e4667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kane K. Foot orthoses for pediatric flexible flatfoot: evidence and current practices among Canadian physical therapists. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2015;27(1):53–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rome K, Ashford RL, Evans A. Non-surgical interventions for paediatric pes planus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;7(7):CD006311.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Banwell H, Paris M, Mackintosh S, Williams C. Paediatric flexible flat foot: how are we measuring it and are we getting it right? A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018;30:11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Halabchi F, Mazaheri R, Mirshahi M, Abbasian L. Pediatric flexible flatfoot; clinical aspects and algorithmic approach. Iran J Pediatr. 2013;23(3):247–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Evans AM, Rome K. A Cochrane review of the evidence for non-surgical interventions for flexible pediatric flat feet. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;47(1):69–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schwend RM, Drennan JC. Cavus foot deformity in children. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(3):201–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Krähenbühl N, Weinberg MW. Anatomy and biomechanics of Cavovarus deformity. Foot Ankle Clin. 2019;24(2):173–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Echarri JJ, Forriol F. The development in footprint morphology in 1851 Congolese children from urban and rural areas, and the relationship between this and wearing shoes. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2003;12(2):141–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chen KC, Yeh CJ, Kuo JF, Hsieh CL, Yang SF, et al. Footprint analysis of flatfoot in preschool-aged children. Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170(5):611–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hawes MR, Sovak D, Miyashita M, et al. Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort. Ergonomics. 1994;37(1):187–96.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kouchi M. Foot dimensions and foot shape: differences due to growth, generation and ethnic origin. Anthropol Sci. 1998;106(Supplement):161–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Tomassoni D, Traini E, Amenta F. Gender- and age-related differences in foot morphology. Maturitas. 2014;79(4):421–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lizis P, Posadzki P, Smith T. Relationship between explosive muscle strength and medial longitudinal arch of the foot. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(9):815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chen KC, Tung LC, Yeh CJ, Yang JF, Kuo JF, Wang CH. Change in flatfoot of preschool-aged children: a 1-year follow-up study. Eur J Pediatr. 2013;172(2):255–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(3):426–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chen KC, Yeh CJ, Tung LC, Yang JF, Yang SF, Wang CH. Relevant factors influencing flatfoot in preschool- aged children. Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170(7):931–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Chen JP, Chung MJ, Wang MJ. Flatfoot prevalence and foot dimensions of 5- to 13-year-old children in Taiwan. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(4):326–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Müller S, Carlsohn A, Müller J, Baur H, Mayer F. Static and dynamic foot characteristics in children aged 1–13 years: a cross-sectional study. Gait Posture. 2012;35(3):389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bosch K, Gerss J, Rosenbaum D. Development of healthy Children’s feet – nine-year results of a longitudinal investigation of plantar loading patterns. Gait Posture. 2010;32(4):564–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Xu M, Hong Y, Li JX, Wang L. Foot morphology in Chinese school children varies by sex and age. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:4536–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Delgado-Abellan L, Aguado X, Jimenez-Ormeno E, et al. Foot morphology in Spanish school children according to sex and age. Ergonomics. 2014;57(5):787–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Barisch-Fritz B, Plank C, Grau S. Evaluation of the rule-of-thumb: calculation of the toe allowance for developing feet. Footwear Sci. 2016;8(3):119–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Waseda A, Suda Y, Inokuchi S, Nishiwaki Y, Toyama Y. Standard growth of the foot arch in childhood and adolescence – derived from the measurement results of 10,155 children. Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;20(3):208–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Prado-León LR, Avila-Chaurand R, Gonzalez-Munoz EL. Anthropometric study of Mexican primary school children. Appl Ergon. 2001;32(4):339–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bari SB, Othman M, Salleh NM. Foot anthropometry for shoe design among preschool children in Malaysia. Pertanika J Soc Sci Humanit. 2010;18:69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Nielsen RG, Rathleff MS, Simonsen OH, Langberg H. Determination of normal values for navicular drop during walking: a new modelcorrecting for foot length and gender. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2(1):12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the foot posture index. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008;1(1):6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Shıang TY, Lee SH, Lee SJ, et al. Evaluating different footprint parameters as a predictor of arch height. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 1998;17(6):62–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, Nigg BM. Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle. 1992;13(1):22–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Forriol F, Pascual J. Footprint analysis between three and seventeen years of age. Foot Ankle. 1990;11(2):101–4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Sacco IC, Onodera AN, Bosch K, Rosenbaum D. Comparisons of foot anthropometry and plantar arch indices between German and Brazilian children. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15(1):4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Jaworski JM, Puch EA. Morphology of overweighted children foot. Proceedings of the 82nd Anatomy Society meeting, pp 89–94, Leipzig, 1987.

  36. 36.

    Gilmour JC, Burns Y. The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch in children. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(6):493–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Ibeabuchi M, Obun C, Olabiyi O, Oluwabusola E, Adebayo A. Prevalence of flat foot among 6-15-year-old Nigerian school children resident in Lagos. J Anatom Sci. 2020;11(2):153–8.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Van Boerum DH, Sangeorzan BJ. Biomechanics and pathophysiology of flat foot. Foot Ankle Clin. 2003;8(3):419–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Grivas TB. Flexible flatfoot, in Grivas TB (ed): Foot and Ankle, Vol. 1. Athens, Ch. Vasiliadis Publisher, 2002, pp. 185–231.

Download references


We would like to give our great appreciation to the school children and their parents who participated in this study.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


This work did not receive any funding.

Author information




S.A., S.G., E.G., A.O., Y.A.: developed study protocol, study material, collected the data, preliminary analysis of data and did the final write up. S.A., N.A.: supervisor, conceptualisation of study, assisted with data collection and reviewing data analysis and review of final write up; All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Senem Guner.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was a voluntary basis that provided privacy and confidentially to the participants. Parents and children provided their written consent to participate. Ankara University of Medical Sciences Ethics Board approved the consent and study procedures (Number 16/242).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alsancak, S., Guner, S., Güven, E. et al. Paediatric flat foot and foot dimension in Central Anatolia. BMC Pediatr 21, 200 (2021).

Download citation


  • Children
  • Foot anthropometric
  • Pes Planus
  • Pes Cavus