## 3 Results
### Evaluation of Changes in Podoscopic Parameters
Specialist foot care treatments influenced the values of the hallux valgus angle \(\alpha\) in the T group as a whole due to changes in the T\({}_{\rm F}\) subgroup. It was found that angle \(\alpha\) decreased after each procedure and was the lowest after the third procedure. Podiatry treatments had a significant effect on the values of the varus angle \(\beta\) of the fifth toe in group T and in both analyzed subgroups. Varus angle \(\beta\) decreased after the first treatment, there was further improvement after the second treatment, and the third treatment strengthened the former positive change (Table 3). Podiatry treatments influenced the longitudinal arch according to Sztriter-Godunow (KY) and Clarke index (CL). After each treatment, the percentage of feet with a normal longitudinal arch was significantly greater than before the treatments (Figure 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**T**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**F**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**NA**} \\ \hline  & & **Avg.** & **SD** & **_p_ & **Post hoc** & **Avg.** & **SD** & **_p_ & **Post hoc** & **Avg.** & **SD** & **_p_ & **Post hoc** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Foot length (cm)**} & **T\({}_{0}\)** & 24.15 & 1.14 & & & 23.70 & 1.01 & & & 24.81 & 1.01 & & \\  & **T\({}_{1}\)** & 24.15 & 1.13 & & ns & 23.71 & 1.03 & ** & ns & 24.79 & 0.96 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{2}\)** & 24.15 & 1.13 & & ns & 23.72 & 1.03 & & ns & 24.78 & 0.98 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{3}\)** & 24.18 & 1.11 & & ns & 23.76 & 1.01 & & * & 24.79 & 0.95 & & ns \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Foot width (cm)**} & **T\({}_{0}\)** & 9.73 & 0.53 & & & 9.90 & 0.53 & & & 9.47 & 0.43 & & \\  & **T\({}_{1}\)** & 9.76 & 0.53 & & * & 9.94 & 0.53 & & ns & 9.51 & 0.41 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{2}\)** & 9.76 & 0.53 & & * & 9.94 & 0.53 & & ns & 9.50 & 0.42 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{3}\)** & 9.78 & 0.52 & & ** & 9.96 & 0.52 & & ** & 9.52 & 0.42 & & ns \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Length of the medial longitudinal arch (cm)**} & **T\({}_{0}\)** & 12.93 & 0.61 & & & 12.70 & 0.54 & & & 13.25 & 0.55 & & \\  & **T\({}_{1}\)** & 12.97 & 0.74 & ns & ns & 12.70 & 0.54 & & ns & 13.37 & 0.81 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{2}\)** & 12.93 & 0.59 & & ns & 12.71 & 0.53 & & ns & 13.25 & 0.53 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{3}\)** & 12.94 & 0.58 & & ns & 12.73 & 0.54 & & ns & 13.25 & 0.50 & ns & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Hallux valgus angle**} & **T\({}_{0}\)** & 18.38 & 10.90 & & & 22.44 & 11.20 & & & 12.48 & 7.26 & & \\  & **T\({}_{1}\)** & 17.61 & 11.01 & & * & 21.56 & 11.57 & & ** & ns & 11.87 & 7.03 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{2}\)** & 17.61 & 10.63 & & * & 21.42 & 10.98 & & + & 12.06 & 7.22 & ns & ns \\  & **T\({}_{3}\)** & 16.87 & 10.73 & & ** & 20.51 & 11.34 & & ** & 11.58 & 7.09 & & ns \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Varus angle of the fifth toe \(\beta\) (\({}^{\circ}\))**} & **T\({}_{0}\)** & 17.21 & 4.40 & & & 18.07 & 4.21 & & & 15.97 & 4.43 & & \\  & **T\({}_{1}\)** & 15.97 & 4.16 & & ** & 16.49 & 4.27 & & ** & 15.23 & 3.93 & ** & ns \\ \cline{1-1}  & **T\({}_{2}\)** & 15.33 & 4.54 & & ** & 16.16 & 4.46 & & ** & 14.13 & 4.46 & & ** \\ \cline{1-1}  & **T\({}_{3}\)** & 15.39 & 4.44 & & ** & 16.24 & 4.98 & & ** & 14.16 & 3.21 & & ** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Foot geometry before treatments (T\({}_{0}\)) and after 1 (T\({}_{1}\)), 2 (T\({}_{2}\)), and 3 (T\({}_{3}\)) procedures in group T—all feet treated (N = 76); and in subgroups F—transverse flat feet (N = 42); and NA—feet with normal transverse arches (N = 34) according to Weiglog Indoc. Avg.—average; SD—standard deviation; _p_—level of significance; ns—not significant; \(p\) \(<\)0.05; **_p_ \(<\)0.01; **_p_ \(<\)0.001; \(p\) \(=\) 0.06 (ANOVA, Dumnett).