scholarly journals Changes in multi-segment foot biomechanics with a heat-mouldable semi-custom foot orthotic device

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reed Ferber ◽  
Brittany Benson
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.


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

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.


Author(s):  
Pilar Macarrón Pérez ◽  
María del Rosario Morales Lozano ◽  
Cristina Vadillo Font ◽  
Lidia Abásolo Alcázar ◽  
Carmen Martínez Rincón ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Patients with rheumatoid arthritis frequently consult for pain resulting from involvement of the tendons of the foot. This pain negatively affects foot biomechanics and quality of life. The most widely used treatment option for this condition is ultrasound-guided steroid injection, while other treatments were recommended such as heel pad, splints, and footwear. Objective To evaluate a joint intervention (rheumatology and podiatry) comprising an orthotic-podiatric treatment and infiltrations. We evaluated the response using ultrasound monitoring, a pain scale, functional tests, and assessment of patient satisfaction. Methods We performed a non-controlled blinded prospective interventional study of 96 patients with foot pain and selected those with ultrasound-confirmed tendon involvement. Patients enrolled started intervention treatment and were followed for 6 months. The outcome of the intervention was compared with the patient’s baseline status. The pre-post differences in the secondary variables (pain, disability) were analyzed using the t test and contingency tables or the Mann–Whitney test. Results Using our protocol, we recorded a rapid and significant reduction in the intensity of pain, in the foot function index, and in the ultrasound parameters (grayscale and Doppler). Structural damage to the tendon improved more slowly, with significant outcomes only at the last visit with respect to baseline. Abnormal foot support was detected in 50% of patients, and 79.5% were using inappropriate footwear. Conclusions Our multidisciplinary therapeutic protocol enabled a very significant improvement in tendon involvement. It was well-tolerated, with a high degree of satisfaction, and was easily evaluated using ultrasound. No changes in background medication were necessary. Key Points• Multidisciplinary evaluation of patients with RA is advisable because it improves the treatment management in cases of inflammatory activity and structural abnormalities of the foot.• Comprising orthopedic-podiatric treatment (heel, splints, and suitable footwear) and infiltrations, in terms of clinical, ultrasound, and functional recovery of the foot tendons.• The therapy protocol we propose led to a significant improvement in pain relief and functional recovery.


2006 ◽  
Vol 171 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Carmont ◽  
John H. Patrick ◽  
Victor N. Cassar-Pullicino ◽  
Neil J. Postans ◽  
Stuart M. Hay

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

2003 ◽  
pp. 33-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter R. Cavanagh ◽  
Jan S. Ulbrecht ◽  
Gregory M. Caputo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document