Development of active ankle foot orthotic device

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 918-921
Author(s):  
Tribedi Sarma ◽  
Kuldeep Kumar Saxena ◽  
Vinayak Majhi ◽  
Divya Pandey ◽  
Ravi Prakash Tewari ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 2509-2514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tribedi Sarma ◽  
Divya Pandey ◽  
Nitin Sahai ◽  
Ravi Prakash Tewari

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher L. MacLean ◽  
Irene S. Davis ◽  
Joseph Hamill

The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of varying running shoe midsole composition on lower extremity dynamics with and without a custom foot orthotic intervention. Three-dimensional dynamics were collected on 12 female runners who had completed 6 weeks of custom foot orthotic therapy. Participants completed running trials in 3 running shoe midsole conditions—with and without a custom foot orthotic intervention. Results from the current study revealed that only maximum rearfoot eversion velocity was influenced by the midsole durometer of the shoe. Maximum rearfoot eversion velocity was significantly decreased for the hard shoe compared with the soft shoe. However, the orthotic intervention in the footwear led to significant decreases in several dynamic variables. The results suggest that the major component influencing the rearfoot dynamics was the orthotic device and not the shoe composition. In addition, data suggest that the foot orthoses appear to compensate for the lesser shoe stability enabling it to function in a way similar to that of a shoe of greater stability.


2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Swinnen ◽  
Christophe Lafosse ◽  
Johan Van Nieuwenhoven ◽  
Stephan Ilsbroukx ◽  
David Beckwée ◽  
...  

Background:Although an orthotic device of the lower limb improves the functionality of neurological patients, anecdotally clinical experience suggests that the compliance is rather limited.Objectives:The aim was to determine the satisfaction and acceptance of a lower limb orthotic device.Study design:A qualitative observational pilot study with a mix-method design.Methods:Adult neurological patients who had a prescribed lower limb orthotic device were included. One published and clinically used questionnaire about satisfaction (D-Quest) and one ad hoc constructed questionnaire about acceptance of the orthotic device (MIRAD-ACCORT questionnaire) were used for data collection.Results:In total, 33 patients participated (28 ankle–foot orthotic device, 3 knee–ankle–foot orthotic device and 2 other types). In general, they were satisfied about their orthotic device and the services. Less than one-fourth of the patients had some negative comments about the ‘visual aspects’ and the ‘ability to hide’ of their orthotic device. These, however, had a lower priority when compared with functionality, which was reported as a main advantage and is a reason for continuing the use of their orthotic device.Conclusion:Patients were satisfied in relation to their lower limb orthotic device. With regard to acceptance, it can be concluded that factors associated with functionality and comfort are more important than the aesthetic and psychological aspects of the orthotic device.Clinical relevancePatients were satisfied with their lower limb orthotic device. Some patients had some negative comments about the ‘aesthetics aspects’ and the ‘ability to hide’ their orthotic device. However, improvements in functionality were mostly reported as a main advantage and a reason for continuing the use of their orthotic device.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narayanasarma V. Singam ◽  
Alok Dwivedi ◽  
Alberto J. Espay

2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S123
Author(s):  
Ashley S. Baker ◽  
Jack E. Taunton ◽  
Don C. McKenzie ◽  
Richard Beauchamp

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lokesh Saharan ◽  
Ashvath Sharma ◽  
Monica Jung de Andrade ◽  
Ray H. Baughman ◽  
Yonas Tadesse
Keyword(s):  

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Littlefield ◽  
Jeanne K. Pomatto ◽  
Kevin M. Kelly

The Dynamic Orthotic Cranioplasty Band is a cranial orthotic device used to treat deformational plagiocephaly in infants. The device works by applying a mild holding pressure to the most anterior and posterior prominences, where growth is not desired, while encouraging growth in adjacent flattened regions. Although this technique has been successfully used to treat infants as young as 3 months of age, it is often assumed that decreasing cranial growth and increasing cranial rigidity prohibit treatment in infants older than 1 year of age. The authors' experience with older infants suggests the contrary. Through a series of case reports, they present evidence that this treatment remains viable during the 2nd year of life and that improvement has been observed in infants in whom treatment has been initiated as late as 18 months. These examples certainly suggest that additional prospective studies are warranted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document