A comparison of footprint indexes calculated from ink and electronic footprints

Pressure platforms offer the potential to measure and record electronic footprints rapidly; however, the accuracy of geometric indexes derived from these prints has not been investigated. A comparison of conventional ink footprints with simultaneously acquired electronic prints revealed significant differences in several geometric indexes. The contact area was consistently underestimated by the electronic prints and resulted in a significant change in the arch index. The long plantar angle was poorly correlated between techniques. This study demonstrated that electronic footprints, derived from a pressure platform, are not representative of the equivalent ink footprints and, consequently, should not be interpreted with reference to literature on conventional footprints.