老年鞋舒适性和安全性的生物力学研究

目的 对老年男性在穿着实验改良鞋进行快走运动时的鞋舒适性和安全性进行评估,为老年鞋具的设计提供数据参考。 方法 16 名 55~ 65 岁男性受试者穿着 3 款不同老年运动鞋,使用视觉模拟评分法( visual analoguescale,VAS)和足底压力参数从主观舒适性和生物力学进行综合评价。 使用垂直地面反作用力( vertical groundreaction force, vGRF)、压力中心(center of pressure, COP)位移和摩擦因数分别从冲击衰减特性、步态稳定性和鞋防滑性三方面对老年运动鞋的安全性进行评价。 结果 在第 2 ~ 5 趾骨区,B 鞋的平均压力、峰值压强均显著低于 A 鞋;在第 2~ 4 跖骨区,B 鞋峰值压强显著低于 C 鞋;在第 5 跖骨区,C 鞋平均压力、峰值压强均显著低于 A、B 鞋;在足弓内侧区,C 鞋平均压力显著高于 A、B 鞋;外侧区,B 鞋平均压力显著低于 C 鞋,峰值压强显著低于 A 鞋。 3 双鞋 vGRF 第 1 峰值力存在显著性差异;B 鞋 vGRF 第 2 峰值力显著低于 C 鞋。 C 鞋足底 COP 在从触地到 vGRF 第 1峰值力产生时间段内左右方向上的位移变化量(COPX-LR)显著高于与 A、B 鞋,而在整个支撑期左右方向上的位移变化量(COPXD)显著高于 B 鞋。 B 鞋脚掌蹬伸摩擦因数峰值显著高于 A、C 鞋,C 鞋着地阶段峰值时刻显著慢于 B 鞋。 结论 B 鞋安全性较高,但仍需进一步的改进以减少第 5 趾骨区的足底压力。 在设计老年人鞋具时,为达到减震缓冲效果而仅采取厚底设计,可能会给老年人的步态稳定性带来负面影响。

Biomechanical Study on Footwear Comfort and Safety for the Elderly

Objective To evaluate the comfort and safety of footwear for the elderly males wearing experimentally modified shoes during fast walking, so as to provide data references for footwear of the elderly. Methods A total of 16 male subjects aged 55-65 years old were required to wear three different types of sports shoes. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and plantar pressure parameters were used to comprehensively evaluate the sports shoes in terms of subjective comfort and biomechanics. Vertical ground reaction force ( vGRF), center of pressure (COP) displacement and friction coefficient were used to evaluate the safety of sports shoes in terms of attenuation characteristics, gait stability and slip resistance. Results In the 2nd-5th phalangeal region, the average and peak pressures of B shoes were significantly lower than those of A shoes. In the 2nd-4th metatarsal region, the peak pressure of B shoes was lower than that of C shoes. In the 5th metatarsal region, the average and peak pressures of C shoes were significantly lower than those of A shoes and B shoes. In the medial area of foot arch, the average pressure of C shoes was significantly higher than that of A shoes and B shoes. On the outside of the arch area, the average pressure of B shoes was significantly lower than that of C shoes, and the peak pressure was significantly lower than that of A shoes. The 1st peak of vGRF between three pairs of shoes was significantly different. The 2nd peak of vGRF of B shoes was significantly lower than that of C shoes. COPX-LR displacement of C shoes was significantly larger than that of A shoes and B shoes, COPXD displacement of C shoes was significantly larger than that of B shoes. The peak friction coefficient of B shoes during push-off stage of the foot was significantly higher than that of A shoes and C shoes, and the peak time of C shoes at landing stage was significantly slower than that of B shoes. Conclusions B shoes have good safety performance. However, further improvement is needed to reduce plantar pressure in the 5th phalangeal region. In designing footwear for the elderly, if the thick sole design is merely adopted to achieve the effect of shock absorption and cushioning, it may bring negative influences on gait stability of the elderly.