Custom-molded foot-orthosis intervention and multisegment medial foot kinematics during walking.

NewsBot · Sep 29, 2011

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Custom-molded foot-orthosis intervention and multisegment medial foot kinematics during walking.
Cobb SC, Tis LL, Johnson JT, Wang YT, Geil MD
J Athl Train. 2011;46(4):358-65

CONTEXT: Foot-orthosis (FO) intervention to prevent and treat numerous lower extremity injuries is widely accepted clinically. However, the results of quantitative gait analyses have been equivocal. The foot models used, participants receiving intervention, and orthoses used might contribute to the variability.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a custom-molded FO intervention on multisegment medial foot kinematics during walking in participants with low-mobile foot posture.

DESIGN: Crossover study.

SETTING: University biomechanics and ergonomics laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Sixteen participants with low-mobile foot posture (7 men, 9 women) were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 FO groups. Intervention(s): After a 2-week period to break in the FOs, individuals participated in a gait analysis that consisted of 5 successful walking trials (1.3 to 1.4 m/s) during no-FO and FO conditions. Main Outcome Measure(s): Three-dimensional displacements during 4 subphases of stance (loading response, midstance, terminal stance, preswing) were computed for each multisegment foot model articulation.

RESULTS: Repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed that rearfoot complex dorsiflexion displacement during midstance was greater in the FO than the no-FO condition (F(1,14) = 5.24, P = .04, partial η(2) = 0.27). Terminal stance repeated-measures ANOVA results revealed insert-by-insert condition interactions for the first metatarsophalangeal joint complex (F(1,14) = 7.87, P = .01, partial η(2) = 0.36). However, additional follow-up analysis did not reveal differences between the no-FO and FO conditions for the balanced traditional orthosis (F(1,14) = 4.32, P = .08, partial η(2) = 0.38) or full-contact orthosis (F(1,14) = 4.10, P = .08, partial η(2) = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS: Greater rearfoot complex dorsiflexion during midstance associated with FO intervention may represent improved foot kinematics in people with low-mobile foot postures. Furthermore, FO intervention might partially correct dysfunctional kinematic patterns associated with low-mobile foot postures.
Click to expand...

Craig Payne · Sep 29, 2011

MASS vs Foot levelers (the PDF is free)

mike weber · Sep 30, 2011

Had a quick look no time to read properly.

That Foot levelers device based on Root orthotics looks nothing like a Root device I have ever seen.

Kevin Kirby · Sep 30, 2011

mike weber said: ↑

Had a quick look no time to read properly.

That Foot levelers device based on Root orthotics looks nothing like a Root device I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

This photo caption stinks of Ed Glaser all over the place. Mert Root is probably turning over in his grave as we speak. What can be done to change this?!

Simon Spooner · Sep 30, 2011

Absolutely shocking. That foot levellers device has absolutely no resemblance to a Root device. What can be done? Write to the editor....:bang:

David Wedemeyer · Sep 30, 2011

Figure 2. A, The full-contact custom-molded orthosis (Sole Supports, Inc, Lyles, TN) is a polyethylene composite material orthosis constructed
to control midfoot motion. B, The balanced custom-molded foot orthosis (Foot Levelers, Inc, Roanoke, VA) is a leather and
composite material orthosis based on the Root Functional orthotic.
Click to expand...

This is the most amusing study I've ever seen. 16 participants, SS vs. FL and making the error of classifying a FL insole as a Root Functional. Really? I'm laughing so hard I fell out of my chair just now!:craig:

Simon Spooner · Sep 30, 2011

David Wedemeyer said: ↑

This is the most amusing study I've ever seen. 16 participants, SS vs. FL and making the error of classifying a FL insole as a Root Functional. Really? I'm laughing so hard I fell out of my chair just now!:craig:
Click to expand...

The question is, why can't ED just fund a study which puts his orthoses up against "real" foot orthoses?

NewsBot · Jan 7, 2016

The influence of semi-custom orthoses on multi-segment foot kinematics in males.
Jonathan Sinclair, James Richards, Paul John Taylor, Hannah Shorepdflrg
The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 8 (4): 5

The current investigation aimed to investigate the influence of semi-custom orthoses on multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain in recreational runners. Fifteen male runners ran at 4.0 m.s-1 with and without orthotics. Multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain were obtained using a 3D motion capture system. Differences between orthotic and no-orthotic conditions were examined using paired samples t-tests. The results showed firstly that orthoses did not significantly (p>0.05) improve plantar fascia strain. Relative transverse plane ROM rearfoot-tibia articulation was however significantly (p<0.05) reduced when wearing orthotics. This indicates that there may be some benefit from orthotic intervention. However, the mean reduction in angulation between orthotic and no-orthotic conditions was very small and thus further prospective investigations regarding the clinical efficacy of semi-custom orthoses are required.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Sep 19, 2018

Effect of foot orthosis design on lower limb joint kinematics and kinetics during walking in flexible pes planovalgus: A systematic review and meta-analysis
GauthierDesmyttereaMaryamHajizadehbJacinteBleaucMickaelBegonab
Clinical Biomechanics; Volume 59, November 2018, Pages 117-129

Highlights
•Medial postings a suitable intervention for excessive foot pronation
•Anti-pronator components are necessary for a positive biomechanical effect.
•Arch support alone is not effective to control excessive pronation.
•Evidences for benefits of foot orthosis on gait features for flat feet remain weak.
•Studies of higher quality are required to facilitate flat feet clinical management.
Click to expand...

Background
Foot orthoses are commonly used for the management of excessive foot pronation in people with pes planovalgus. However, results are inconsistent due to variability in orthosis geometrical designs. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to classify and investigate the effects of foot orthoses, based on their design, in terms of lower limb kinematics and kinetics in people with pes planovalgus.

Methods
Electronic databases were searched up until August 2017. Peer-reviewed journal studies including adult participants with flexible pes planovalgus and reporting kinematics and kinetics effects of foot orthoses during walking were included and classified based on the orthosis design. Eleven studies were retained and assessed according to methodological (mean 76.1%; range [63.2%–84.2%] - high) and biomechanical (mean 71.6%; range [44.4%–100%] - moderate) qualities. Meta-analysis was performed by calculating the effect size, using standardized mean differences, between control and orthotics conditions.

Findings
Meta-analysis revealed less rearfoot eversion with the use of foot orthoses including medial forefoot or both forefoot and rearfoot posting. However, no significant effect of foot orthoses with arch support and neutral rearfoot posting to control excessive foot pronation were found. In terms of kinetics, none of the foot orthoses showed effects.

Interpretation
Using medial posting is the most effective foot orthotic feature to reduce the peak rearfoot eversion and to control excessive foot pronation. Nevertheless, heterogeneity between study protocols contributes to the low evidences of foot orthoses effects on kinematics and kinetics during walking in people with pes planovalgus.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Feb 10, 2020

Acute effects of different orthoses on lower extremity kinetics and kinematics during running; a musculoskeletal simulation analysis.
Sinclair J et al
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2019 ;21(4):13-25.

PURPOSE:
The current investigation aimed to examine the effects of different orthotic conditions on the biomechanical mechanisms linked to the aetiology of chronic pathologies using musculoskeletal simulation.

METHODS:
16 male and 20 females ran over an embedded force plate at 4.0 m/s, in five different conditions (medial, lateral, no-orthoses, semi-custom and off the shelf). Kinematics of the lower extremities were collected using an eight-camera motion capture system and lower extremity joint loading also explored using a musculoskeletal simulation approach. Differences between orthoses conditions were examined using 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA.

RESULTS:
External instantaneous load rate was significantly reduced in the off the shelf orthoses (male = 1290.60 and female = 1567.10 N/kg/s), compared to the medial (male = 1480.45 and female = 1767.05 N/kg/s) and semi-custom (male = 1552.99 and female = 1704.37 N/kg/s) conditions. In addition, peak patellofemoral stress was significantly lower in the off the shelf orthoses (male = 68.55 and female = 94.91 KPa/kg) compared to the lateral condition (male = 70.49 and female = 103.22 KPa/kg). Finally, peak eversion angles were significantly attenuated in the medial orthoses (male = -6.61 and female = -7.72 deg) compared to the lateral (male = -9.61 and female = -10.32 deg), no-orthoses (male = -8.22 and female = -10.10 deg), semi-custom (male = -8.25 and female = -9.49 deg) and off the shelf (male = -7.54 and female = -8.85 deg) conditions.

CONCLUSIONS:
The current investigation shows that different orthotic devices⁄ configurations may provide distinct benefits in terms of their effectiveness in attenuating the biomechanical parameters linked to the aetiology of chronic running injuries.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jun 9, 2021

IMU-Based Effects Assessment of the Use of Foot Orthoses in the Stance Phase during Running and Asymmetry between Extremities
Juan Luis Florenciano Restoy et al
Sensors (Basel). 2021 May 10;21(9):3277

The objectives of this study were to determine the amplitude of movement differences and asymmetries between feet during the stance phase and to evaluate the effects of foot orthoses (FOs) on foot kinematics in the stance phase during running. In total, 40 males were recruited (age: 43.0 ± 13.8 years, weight: 72.0 ± 5.5 kg, height: 175.5 ± 7.0 cm). Participants ran on a running treadmill at 2.5 m/s using their own footwear, with and without the FOs. Two inertial sensors fixed on the instep of each of the participant's footwear were used. Amplitude of movement along each axis, contact time and number of steps were considered in the analysis. The results indicate that the movement in the sagittal plane is symmetric, but that it is not in the frontal and transverse planes. The right foot displayed more degrees of movement amplitude than the left foot although these differences are only significant in the abduction case. When FOs are used, a decrease in amplitude of movement in the three axes is observed, except for the dorsi-plantar flexion in the left foot and both feet combined. The contact time and the total step time show a significant increase when FOs are used, but the number of steps is not altered, suggesting that FOs do not interfere in running technique. The reduction in the amplitude of movement would indicate that FOs could be used as a preventive tool. The FOs do not influence the asymmetry of the amplitude of movement observed between feet, and this risk factor is maintained. IMU devices are useful tools to detect risk factors related to running injuries. With its use, even more personalized FOs could be manufactured.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Nov 5, 2022

The Effect of Non-prescription Orthotics on Walking Gait in Participants with Excessive Pronation
Mitra Kakavand et al
Int J Sport Stud Hlth. 2022;5(2):e131801. doi: 10.5812/intjssh-131801.

Background: Insole orthotics are prescribed to correct human body position during both the standing position and the motion of gait. Also, they are being applied for people who have forefoot abduction and arch deformation. However, a little is known about the relationship between forefoot and arch orthotic correction and the alternation in foot biomechanics.
Objectives: This study was aimed to determine the effect of non-prescription insole orthotics in walking gait parameters.
Methods: It was a quasi- experimental with pre-test, post-test design study. Twelve volunteer participants (41 ± 17 y), 10 men and two women, participated in this study. Three-dimensional (3D) cameras were used to do motion capture through those markers placed on lower body segments. Seven segments such as: Hip, left and right thigh, left and right shank, left and right foot were used for labelling in this study, which was measured with Vicon T-Series cameras at 250 Hz. The participants did walk in three different phases: Barefoot, running shoe, running shoe with a non-prescription orthotic inside. t-test was used to analyse the data.
Results: The paired t-test results indicated that there is significant difference in cadence, step length and stride length for running shoe, and non-prescription orthotics compare to those of barefoot (P ≤ 0.05). Additionally, it was found that, non-prescription orthotics resulted in higher step length and stride length, and less cadence (P ≤ 0.05). On the other hand, But, no significant changes were found for non-prescription orthotics (P ≥ 0.05).
Conclusions: It was concluded that cadence, step length and stride length were improved in running shoe compared to non-prescription orthotics group. But there were not any significant differences between running shoe and non-prescription orthotics.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Nov 6, 2022

Immediate Impacts of Two Foot Orthotic Designs on Foot Posture Index, Gait, and Comfort in Adults With Asymptomatic, Flexible Pes Planus
Mullen, Ashley PhD, MSAT, CPO; Kenworthy, Sally MPO, CPO; Ewing, Kathryn MS, CPO; Forbus, Michelle MS, CPO; Hoelscher Thompson, Regan MS, CPO
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics: October 17, 2022 - Volume - Issue - 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000452

Introduction
Flexible flatfeet are commonly treated with functional foot orthoses (FFOs) and University of California Berkeley Laboratory (UCBL) designs. This study sought to evaluate the immediate effects of low-profile FFOs and high-profile UCBL orthoses on Foot Posture Index (FPI), spatiotemportal measures of gait, and perceived comfort and compliance in adults with flexible flatfeet.

Materials and Methods
Fourteen individuals with self-reported asymptomatic flexible flatfeet participated in this randomized cross-sectional study. Custom FFOs and UCBL orthoses were fabricated for each participant, who then walked at a self-selected speed in each condition on a Zeno Mat. Foot Posture Index, perceived comfort and compliance, and spatiotemporal parameters were collected across conditions.

Results
There were no significant differences in velocity, cadence, step length, stride width, toe-in/toe-out, or stance center of pressure distance percentage. Stance phase duration significantly increased from baseline to UCBL condition. There was a statistically significant decrease bilaterally in FPI from baseline to FFO and from baseline to UCBL orthosis, but not between FFO and UCBL orthosis. There were no significant differences in comfort and compliance ratings between FFOs and UCBL orthoses.

Conclusions
With regard to immediate effects, both the UCBL and FFO designs improve foot posture without significant impact on spatiotemporal gait patterns or perceived comfort and compliance. Additional research is needed to determine the longevity of these effects.

Clinical Relevance
The results of this study support the use of both FFOs and UCBL orthoses when trying to provide foot posture correction for adults with asymptomatic flexible flatfeet.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jan 31, 2023

4D-foot analysis on effect of arch support on ankle, subtalar, and talonavicular joint kinematics
TakumaMiyamoto et al
Journal of Orthopaedic Science; 27 January 2023

Background
It has been difficult to study the effects of arch support on multiple joints simultaneously. Herein, we evaluated foot and ankle kinematics using a fully automated analysis system, “4D-Foot,” consisting of a biplane X-ray imager and two-dimensional‒three-dimensional registration, with automated image segmentation and landmark detection tools.

Methods
We evaluated the effect of arch support on ankle, subtalar, and talonavicular joint kinematics in five healthy female volunteers without a clinical history of foot and ankle disorders. Computed tomography images of the foot and ankle and X-ray videos of walking barefoot and with arch support were acquired. A kinematic analysis using the “4D-Foot” system was performed. The ankle, subtalar, and talonavicular joint kinematics were quantified from heel-strike to foot-off, with and without arch support.

Results
For the ankle joint, significant differences were observed in dorsi/plantarflexion, inversion/eversion, and internal/external rotation in the late midstance phase. The dorsi/plantarflexion and inversion/eversion motions were smaller with arch support. For the subtalar joint, a significant difference was observed in all the dynamic motions in the heel-strike and late midstance phases. For the talonavicular joint, significant differences were observed in inversion/eversion and internal/external rotation in heel-strike and the late midstance phases. For the subtalar and talonavicular joints, the motion was larger with arch support. An extremely strong correlation was observed when the motion of the subtalar and talonavicular joints was compared for each condition and motion.

Conclusions
The results indicated that the arch support decreased the ankle motion and increased the subtalar and talonavicular joint motions. Additionally, our study demonstrated that the in vivo subtalar and talonavicular joints revealed a strong correlation, suggesting that the navicular and calcaneal bones were moving similarly to the talus and that the arch support stabilizes the ankle joint and compensatively increases the subtalar and talonavicular joint motions.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Nov 16, 2023

Effect of Foot Orthoses on Angular Velocity of Feet
Juan Luis Florenciano Restoy et al
Sensors (Basel). 2023 Nov 2;23(21):8917

There is some uncertainty regarding how foot orthoses (FO) affect the biomechanics of the lower extremities during running in non-injured individuals. This study aims to describe the behavior of the angular velocity of the foot in the stride cycle measured with a low-sampling-rate IMU device commonly used by podiatrists. Specific objectives were to determine if there are differences in angular velocity between the right and left foot and to determine the effect of foot orthoses (FO) on the 3D angular velocity of the foot during running. The sample was composed of 40 male adults (age: 43.0 ± 13.8 years, weight: 72.0 ± 5.5 kg, and height: 175.5 ± 7.0 cm), who were healthy and without any locomotor system alterations at the time of the test. All subjects use FO on a regular basis. The results show that there are significant differences in the transverse plane between feet, with greater differences in the right foot. Significant differences between FO and non-FO conditions were observed in the frontal and transverse planes on the left foot and in the sagittal and transverse planes on the right foot. FO decreases the velocity of the foot in dorsi-plantar flexion and abduction and increases the velocity in inversion. The kinematic changes in foot velocity occur between 30% and 60% of the complete cycle, and the FO reduces the velocity in abduction and dorsi-plantar flexion and increases the velocity in inversion-eversion, which facilitates the transition to the oscillating leg and with it the displacement of the center of mass. Quantifying possible asymmetries and assessing the effect of foot orthoses may aid in improving running mechanics and preventing injuries in individuals.
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Craig Payne Moderator

mike weber MVP

Kevin Kirby MVP

Attached Files:

Mass vs Foot Levelers.jpg

Simon Spooner MVP

David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

Simon Spooner MVP

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Actual Cost of Modified Prefab vs. Custom Molded Orthoses

Custom orthotic LAB

40% of amazon customers using Prokinetic Insoles were disappointed

Heat Moldable In Office Custom Orthotics

Heat Moldable Custom Orthotic, Narrow (Dress) Profile

Heat Moldable Custom Orthotic, Medium (Athletic) Profile

The effect of gender on willingness to pay for mass customised running shoes

Share This Page