P39 presented in PS02: Poster teaser: Children (non-CP) Dynamic pedobarography in evaluation of prone and neutral foot in adolescent Bahar O ¨ zgu ¨ l, Eren Timurtas ¸ *,I ˙ lks ¸ an Demirbu ¨ ken, Mine Gu ¨ lden Polat Marmara University Health Sciences Faculty, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Istanbul, Kartal, Turkey Introduction: Technology that allows absolute evaluation is not widely used because of the time and costs to assess the musculoskeletal function of the foot. Foot Posture Index (FPI) has become increasingly used in clinical practice and has contributed to the diagnosis and treatment of the patient [1]. However, studies are needed to show the correlation between objective data for the clinical use of foot posture scale. Research question: Are there any differences prone and neutral foot types in adolescent by using dynamic pedobarographic measurement and the center of pressure excursion index (CPEI). Methods: A total of 145 adolescents (44 female and 101 male) who were between 10 and 15 years old were included in the study. Physical characteristics of subjects (gender, body weight, height) were recorded and static foot postures of subjects were assessed by using the 6-item FPI [2]. Dynamic pedobarography system (EMED-M, 38 cm  42 cm, four sensors per square centimeter, 50 Hz; Novel GmbH. Munich, Germany) was performed to attain walking patterns at self-selected speed. Maximum pressure (N and %BW), peak pressure (kPa) and contact area (mm) values were obtained from dominant foot. CPEI scores were also calculated per dominant foot. Independent T test was used to compare neutral and prone foot types. Significance was determined as p < 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference between neutral and prone foot posture according to pedobarographic parameters (maximum pressure (N), peak pressure, contact area) and CPEI scores in all foot segments (p > 0.05). Discussion: Several studies have evaluated the characteristics of plantar pressure distribution in patients with prone foot or the correlations between plantar pressure and other clinical tools in adults [3]. However, differences between prone foot posture and neutral foot posture are poorly understood in adolescent feet. We compared to distributions of plantar pressure in subjects with prone to normal subjects, the results showed that pedobarographic parameters and CPEI scores did not differentiate between neutral and prone foot posture in foot regions and in the whole foot. Future studies should include a broader range of foot postures and different assessment methods. References [1] Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the foot posture index. J. Foot Ankle Res. 2008;1(1):6. [2] Keenan A-M, et al. The foot posture index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot- specific outcome measure. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007;88(1):88–93. [3] Lee JS, et al. Correlation of foot posture index with plantar pressure and radiographic measurements in pediatric flatfoot. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2015; 39(1):10–7. Gait & Posture 49S (2016) 179 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: fzteren@gmail.com (E. Timurtas ¸ ). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Gait & Posture journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gaitpost http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.07.233 0966-6362/