How Developmental Foot Structure Drives Chronic Pain: The Rothbart Foot Paradigm

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

For decades, patients suffering from persistent back pain, migraines, scoliosis, temporomandibular joint dysfunction (TMJ), and fibromyalgia have cycled through therapies targeting symptoms without addressing the root cause. As a clinician and researcher, I began asking a fundamental question: What if the origin of these chronic conditions lies not in the spine or head, but in the feet?
In 2002, I introduced a previously unrecognized developmental foot structure—now called Rothbarts Foot—which I hypothesize to be a primary driver of a wide range of musculoskeletal and neurological disorders. This structural foot abnormality is heritable, identifiable, and modifiable through non-invasive proprioceptive therapy.
The Foundation of Postural Integrity
The human foot is not merely a support platform—it is a dynamic sensorimotor interface with the ground. It provides critical proprioceptive input that influences the alignment and function of the entire musculoskeletal system. When the foot’s structure is developmentally abnormal, its impact is not isolated. Over time, it creates a cascade of compensations that affect the ankles, knees, pelvis, spine, cranium, and even the jaw.
Introducing Rothbarts Foot
Rothbarts Foot is a developmental structure characterized by a medially rotated talus and increased calcaneal eversion. This results in excessive pronation, leading to instability during the stance phase of gait. The body attempts to maintain equilibrium through compensatory muscle contractions, joint misalignments, and fascial tension.
Patients with this foot type often present with:

• Forward head posture
• Functional leg length discrepancies
• Pelvic torsion
• Facial asymmetry
• Chronic muscular tension

Unlike acquired flat feet, Rothbarts Foot is heritable and appears early in development. In clinical studies, it has been linked to PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity (PCCFD) and Primus Metatarsus Supinatus (PMS)—two other foot structures I have identified in my research.
A Proprioceptive Therapeutic Approach
Most podiatric interventions focus on mechanical correction through orthotics that support the arch or redistribute weight. My approach diverges significantly: I developed proprioceptive insoles designed to stimulate specific plantar mechano-receptors. This afferent stimulation alters postural tone through reflexive neuromuscular responses, facilitating more natural alignment throughout the kinetic chain.
This therapeutic method does not force the foot into a new position, but rather gently reprograms the central nervous system to restore proper posture and reduce chronic tension and pain. Patients often report reductions in head, back, and joint pain within weeks to months of therapy.
Independent Validation
In 2021, my research was independently replicated. Rothbarts Foot was confirmed through cadaver studies and AI-enhanced 3D ultrasound imaging, providing objective anatomical validation of the structure I first described two decades earlier. These findings mark a significant milestone and establish a foundation for broader clinical adoption and further research.
The Need for a Paradigm Shift
Chronic pain is often treated at the site of symptoms rather than at its source. When clinicians consider the foot's role in systemic dysfunction, it opens the door to more effective, sustainable care. While my model challenges conventional compartmentalized thinking, emerging replication studies and clinical outcomes continue to support its relevance.
I invite researchers, clinicians, and therapists to consider a bottom-up approach to chronic pain—one that starts with a careful analysis of foot structure and its neurological and biomechanical consequences.

 

Attempting to discus proprioceptive afferents from the foot whilst omitting the intrinsic foot muscles is very poor . Likely, if an insole with a Morton's extension improves proprioception its effects are on the muscles rather than the cutaneous receptors of one limited area of the plantar surface of the skin.

Younger podiatrists are pretty switched on with regard to the intrinsic foot muscles (although they still seem to be taught that toe curls are the way to go in some educational setups, which is incorrect IMO ), but older graduates have less interest in these muscles.

Re textured insoles that stimulate the cutaneous receptors, there is evidence that these improve balance but they contact large areas of the foot.

 

My research is focused on the etiology of postural distortions. I believe the the skewing of the foot´s sensory feedback (to the cerebellum) is what causes the postural distortions.

Do you believe the Ruffini´s corpuscules in the intrinsic muscles of the foot, when stretched (activated), result in postural distortions. If so, can you describe how this occurs?

 

Look forward to the randomized controlled trial results.

 

It took 20 years, but replication studies proved that Rothbart's Foot is present postnatally. Hopefully, it will not take that long for replication studies to prove my research on the etiology of postural distortions.

 

If what you call RF can be corrected via neuromuscular means does that not make it a neuromuscular condition?

 

Orthopedic researchers in Europe have demonstrated that medial column supinatus exist in postnatal feet.. Medial column supinatus is pathognomic of Rothbarts foot. So call if what you like, RF or MCS. Just be aware that I was the first researcher to publish on the occurrence of MCS in the postnatal foot.

Regarding your above question, my research looks at the loop between the foot´s sensory feedback and the spatial postural coding. Proprioceptive insoles adjust (towards homeostasis) the sensory feedback to the cerebellum. Proprioceptive insoles do not recruit postural muscles to adjust posture. That is done in the Cerebellum.

 

Dear Dr. Rothbardt,
As a clinician specializing in the rehabilitation of patients with complex and rare deformities of the foot and lower leg (including pediatric cases), as well as in the management of pain clinics and the treatment of patients with chronic pain, I would like to express, on the one hand, my respect for your work and academic contributions, but at the same time, allow me to articulate my disagreement — or rather, my lack of understanding.

On the one hand, you refer to the paradigm of neurophysiology, to postural control and a so‑called “bottom-up” model of reasoning. The problem, however, is that contemporary knowledge — particularly in the field of pain medicine — increasingly challenges a purely mechanistic approach to these issues. It likewise places in doubt an exclusively neurophysiological interpretation. Moreover, the model of receptor mechanotransduction and the role of Meissner’s and Ruffini’s corpuscles in the so-called “foot–posture–pain” system is not unknown to me. But this is not merely a “hypothesis”; rather, it is a model with specific biomechanical and clinical implications.

Allow me therefore, as a Polish clinician, Evidence‑Based Medicine/Evidence‑Based Practice practitioner, and academic teacher, to explain how I see these matters. There is no such thing as something “neurophysiologically correct” that could stand in contradiction to biomechanics. If a phenomenon is biomechanically accurate, it must likewise be consistent neurophysiologically. Yet, the patient with chronic pain presents with numerous complex problems across multiple levels. The very definition of “chronic” must be addressed: according to IASP, chronicity is not simply a matter of duration, but rather of the state of the nervous system, biochemistry, and overall biology of the organism. When we further divide chronic pain into nociplastic, neuropathic, and other subtypes, we enter an immensely broad and continually evolving field of medicine—one that is still searching for optimal strategies to help these patients.

If I may ask, in a collegial spirit: Primus Metatarsus Supinatus — how do you objectively assess it? And most importantly, how do you objectively establish its correlation with other clinical observations? I must emphasize that—based on the works of Ponseti (and my own practice in the rehabilitation of patients with clubfoot)—the mechanics of this deformity appear to differ fundamentally from those described in your publications. What I seek is a straightforward answer: How, in your view, should one examine supination of the first ray, i.e., deformity of the talar neck? From my perspective, and after years of clinical observation, I strongly doubt — indeed, I am nearly convinced — that the causal relationship you propose simply does not exist.

Please do not misunderstand me: torsion of the talar neck, with its associated cranio‑caudal consequences and eventual supination of the first ray, indeed carries many biomechanical implications. However, I must point out that in clubfoot deformity, the forefoot is in pronation — not in supination. Thus, I kindly request that my questions be considered as part of a clinical discussion, not as an attack.
I am not a researcher, but as a clinical practitioner I systematically analyze, read, and apply scientific studies in my daily work, in line with the obligatory principles of evidence-based practice. Therefore, I must ask: can you demonstrate, not merely biomechanical associations, but objective correlations between lumbosacral pain syndromes and the so‑called “Rothbart Foot”? Specifically: which method, which measurement, which exclusion criteria? Are you able to provide objective data on this?

Your observations are undoubtedly interesting, but your conclusions strike me as exceedingly far‑reaching — which, as a clinician and academic, I find concerning. Let me repeat once again: this is not an attack, but simply a professional exchange of views. A significant number of therapists across Europe have heard of the so-called “Rothbart Foot.” In carefully reviewing your papers and observations, I cannot help but wonder: is the difficulty located in the very entity of Primus Metatarsus Supinatus (what has come to be known as “Rothbart Foot”), or rather in the lack of standardized clinical methods of assessment and the somewhat far-reaching conclusions drawn from them? How accurate are these conclusions — or are they perhaps not accurate at all?

This is especially important given that one of the most common complex deformities, clubfoot, has its own recognized system of evaluation and a gold standard of treatment. Thus, what I wish to understand is: how does your concept address an alternative pathology, and is there rigorous statistical and clinical verification to substantiate it?

With kind regards and professional respect,
Piotr Kostrzębski
MSc, Physiotherapy
International Instructor in Foot Examination and Therapy

 

Hi Piotr,

Your questions are very insightful and need to be addressed.

Let’s start with: Does medial column supinatus (mcs), the hallmark of the Primus Metatarsus Supinatus deformity (aka Rothbarts Foot, RFS) and the Preclinical Clubfoot Deformity (PCFD), exist in the postnatal foot? Up until 2021, no replication studies existed that confirmed mcs existed, other than embryologically. This all changed in 2021 with two independent, replication studies:

• Dibbern (2021) demonstrated mcs in a cadaveric study
• Schmidt (2021), demonstrated mcs using CT analysis

So, at this point, are you comfortable in accepting the fact that mcs exists in the postnatal foot? And since mcs is the hallmark finding in both RFS and PCFD, are you comfortable in accepting the fact that both RFS and PCFD exist postnatally?

If so, allow me to continue answering your questions. In point of fact, during my 50 years of clinical and research studies, I found the incidence of these two foot deformities to be surprisingly common.


Schmidt E., Silva T., Baumfeld D., et.al. The rotational positioning of the bones in the medial column of the foot. A weightbearing CT analysis. Iowa Orthop J. 2021;41(3):103-109.

Dibbern K., Briggs H., Behrens A., et.al. Reliability of coronal plane rotation measurements in the medial column of the foot. A cadaveric study. J Foot Ankle. 2021;15(3):252-258.

 

Hi Piotr,

You asked; “Primus Metatarsus Supinatus — how do you objectively assess it?”

Medial column supinatus (hallmark of the Primus Metatarsus Supinatus deformity) is quantified using a microwedge (triangularly shaped wedge, scaled in millimeters):

• The subtalar joint is positioned and maintained in its’ anatomical neutral position (i.e., joint congruity).
• The microwedge is slid underneath the 1st metatarsal until resistance is met.
  
• The degree of supinatus (in millimeters) is read directly off the microwedge

The accuracy and replication of this measuring technique was evaluated by Cummings et al (1997) at Georgia State University, Department of Physical Therapy.

The study demonstrated that this active, weightbearing technique is a reliable method for forefoot measurement, showing high intrarater, interrater, and day-to-day reliability (ICC values ranging from 0.84 to 0.95).


Cummings G.S., Higbie J. A weight bearing method for determining forefoot posting for orthotic fabrication. Physiotherapy Research International. 1997;2(1):42-50. doi: 10.1002/pri.78

 

Hi Piotr,

You stated, “There is no such thing as something “neurophysiologically correct”
I agree.

What I was discussing was a skewing in the Foot’s Sensory Feedback.

Specifically, in the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity, gravity drive pronation shifts the pattern of activated Meissner corpuscules medially and this is recorded in the Foot’s Sensory Feedback. This sensory feedback is transmitted to the cerebellum, where it is decoded as walking up hill. The cerebellum automatically shifts the posture forward (i.e., forward lean pattern), observed in the patient's postural analysis.

You stated, “in the field of pain medicine — places in doubt an exclusively neurophysiological interpretation (regarding postural distortions).”

If this indeed is the general view in the field of pain medicine, I disagree. I acknowledge that my Neurophysiological Posture Model diverges from current theories as to the etiology of postural deformations, but I believe my model will in time, prove to be correct.

I have been down this road before. In 2002 I published on two previously unrecognized foot deformities (RFS and Preclinical Clubfoot Deformity). For 20 years my research findings were contested. Then in 2021, two independent studies replicated by research.

 

Hi Piotr,

You Wrote: “I must point out that in clubfoot deformity, the forefoot is in pronation — not in supination.”
Do not confuse the Clubfoot Deformity with the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity. They are two separate and distinctly different deformities. On Researchgate, I have placed a PowerPoint file, Foot Embryogenesis. Viewing this presentation will clear up any confusion you may have regarding these two deformities.


You Wrote: “How, in your view, should one examine supination of the first ray, i.e., deformity of the talar neck? “

• Supinatus of the 1st ray is measured using microwedges.
• 1st ray supinatus is a component of medial column supinatus.
• Medial column supinatus is the result of the incomplete unwinding of the talar head.

Hence, the talar head deformity is measured indirectly by measuring 1st ray supinatus.


You Wrote: “From my perspective, and after years of clinical observation, I strongly doubt — indeed, I am nearly convinced — that the causal relationship you propose simply does not exist.”
If you are stating that the supinatus of the 1st ray (e.g., medial column supinatus) has no relationship to postural distortions, I disagree. Over the years, I have repetitively demonstrated this relationship (1) clinically using computerized postural analyses, gait analyses, and pressure plate studies, and (2) statistically in several published research studies.

I have termed the Foot's Sensory Feedback - coupling to the cerebellum, the Neurophysiological Postural Model.

 

Hi Piotr,

You wrote: “I must emphasize that—based on the works of Ponseti (and my own practice in the rehabilitation of patients with clubfoot)—the mechanics of this deformity appear to differ fundamentally from those described in your publications.”

You are confusing the Clubfoot Deformity with the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity. They are totally different foot deformities. The mechanics are totally different. And the interventions are totally different: Ponseti method uses serial casting to ameliorate the Clubfoot Deformity, I use proprioceptive insoles to stabilize the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity.

Note: I have not published any papers specifically on the Clubfoot Deformity. I have frequently published on the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity.

You wrote: “If a phenomenon is biomechanically accurate, it must likewise be consistent neurophysiologically.”

If you are referring to postural models, I disagree.

Both the Biomechanical and Neurophysiological Postural Models argue that postural deformities commonly come from the feet. However, the description on how this occurs is very different:

Biomechanical Postural Model: A structural varus deformity is unstable in a gravitation field. Gravity pulls that foot forward, inward and downward (gravity drive pronation) until the entire foot rests on the ground. The postural complex follows the foot; that is, so goes the foot, so goes the entire posture (foot to jaw). In 1988 I coined this gravity drive postural collapse, BioImplosion.

Neurophysiological Postural Model (Rothbart 2011): Rothbarts Foot and the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity are unstable in a gravitation field. Gravity pulls these foot structures downward until the medial column rests on the ground. This shifts the CoP patterns (Foot's Sensory Feedback) medially. This pattern is transmitted to the cerebellum which decodes it as standing on an inclined ground surface, automatically shifting the posture forward, e.g., forward lean pattern.


Rothbart B.A. 2011. Primus Metatarsus Supinatus (Rothbarts Foot): A common cause of musculoskeletal pain – Biomechanical vs Neurophysiological Model. Podiatry Review. Vol 68(4):16-18.