Cross-sectional study identifies flatfoot prevalence in a hospital population, highlighting gender and activity level impacts.
Introduction: Flatfoot (pes planus) occurs when the medial longitudinal arch flattens, causing discomfort and potential deformities in the feet, knees and ankles. The study aimed to determine the prevalence of flatfoot and its associated factors amongst patients attending a preventive health and screening outpatient department at the tertiary care hospital in Delhi. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted over 3 months at a tertiary care hospital, enrolling patients aged 18 years and above through the systematic random sampling. Data collection included demographic information, physical activity levels, body mass index and medical history. A three-dimensional foot scanner categorised participants into five-foot structure groups: high arch, normal arch, mild flatfoot, moderate flatfoot and severe flatfoot. The accuracy of the scanner was validated through clinical examination. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse the association between flatfoot and various factors. Results: The prevalence of flatfoot was 33% (95% confidence interval: 27.9%–38.4%) in either foot, with 25.6% in the right foot and 26.5% in the left foot. Gender was significantly associated with flatfoot, with women nearly twice as likely to have flatfoot compared to men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.9, P = 0.01). Physical activity had a protective effect; those engaging in more than 150 min of physical activity per week had a lower prevalence of flatfoot (AOR = 0.04, P = 0.01). Conclusion: The study revealed a flatfoot prevalence of 33% in the population, with significant associations observed between gender and physical activity levels. Given these findings, routine screening for flatfoot is recommended. Early detection, coupled with interventions like targeted exercises or the use of custom insoles, can help mitigate long-term complications and improve the quality of life for affected individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Debnath et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: