Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Hard to believe that these two orthotics are for the same foot:




One is based on the MASS design and the other based on the MOSI design.

 

Hi Craig,

I´m not sure it´s that hard to beleive that there from the same foot. It´s what you would hope to see.
2 different devices providing 2 different Orthotic reaction forces (ORF).

It upto the person to decide which device what required and provide the device required. Just the same if we had a medial Skive with the other 2 it would look different,where people get messed up is decide what ORF required.

That what I think before coffee on a Sunday.

 

Hi Craig
They both appear to be milled- how were they manufactured? ie- scanned impression?
Cheers

 

MASS position foam impression; then minimal CAD modfiication for the MASS device and lots of mods for the MOSI like device --- so both device milled from same original impression. ... they part of a study looking at comfort from orthotics related to where the STJ axis is...

 

So a MOSI device from a MASS impression? Is that protocol for a MOSI device?
Which CAD system are you using?

 

I was careful to use the words "MASS like" and "MOSI like" devices. In reality they are really a device with no arch fill and a device with 15mm arch fill and 20 degees of rearfoot wedging. The research hypothesis is looking at arch comfort in those with and without a medial stj axis ... ie if the orthotic pushes on the axis, is it comfortable? (which is what my clinical experience tells me is the case).

Not sure of the CAD software used as they being made for us.

 

I should have read your followup posting. Oops.

For the mass like device, which I assume to be the intrinsic heel post, I'm thinking ouch. The longitudinal arch peak position would be more proximal on a MASS posted device, at least from what I read of it, since the foot is being supinated during casting. I'd also expect the natural movement of midtarsal joints to be more restricted,


For the Mosi like device, was the forefoot correction actually valgus? That just seems counter-intuitive, but I also had a similar conversation with another doctor in the past day on a similar design, valgus 3 degrees and a medial Kirby Skive of 4mm.

 

So which device turned out to be more comfortable there Craig?

Mike

 

~both devices were equally comfortable in those with a more normal orientation to the STJ axis; those with a more medial STJ axis could did not like the MASS type device. No surprises.

 

Any chance in being part of the study Craig or is it too late?

Neil

 

It was finished last yr.

 

No probs. Keep me in the loop for anything simular in future.

Cheers :drinks

Neil

 

That subtalar joint axis location stuff is so traditional.....don't you have anything more new and revolutionary to talk about and research, Craig?:rolleyes: