Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I recently had chance to get a copy of the John Martin Hiss book "FUNCTIONAL FOOT DISORDERS - with particular reference to their effect on the LOWER EXTREMITY" 1949.

I find it a fascinating read, intrigued that this man had an extensive "evidence" based approach to his work as far back as the 1940's, even addressing the old kernal of the relationship of heel spur and heel pain back then. Equally as interesting is his "law" that in foot function "Comfort varies directly with Function"

I am wondering how may others may have come across this work?

Certainly a fascinating and surprisingly enjoyable read! Or am I just a sado. :eek:

Ian

 

I have a copy of this book and agree with you. I have several old medical texts on foot/ankle disorders. They are all interesting reads. I find, in some respects, foot science has been repackaged rather than evolved. Try to find the works of Kelikian. He has a very unique writing style- it reads like a novel at times.

 

Hi Scorpio

I'd agree with you about style. Indeed I think the way some of them were written made the content much more memorable. Perhaps we could benefit from some of their presentation insights today. Come to that I quite enjoyed his approaches to foot function.
Ian

 

Ian et al

I have from time to time researched topics which have required reading old textbooks and never fail to be amazed at the understanding and insights therein.

EBP, of course, is not new by any stretch of the imagination but more likely now to challenge pragmatism which has been the preferred modus operandi for most clinical practitioners. One reason why we continue to repeat ourselves is because there has been a basic (mis) understanding that what we learn at podiatry school (primal learning) will last us a professional life time. The half life of a medical fact is 25 years! This may well help to explain why insights of yesteryear never quite evolved. Podiatry has an oral tradition (we still need an out of town expert with Powerpoints) and is only just developing a written culture (by that I mean, refereed journals).

One other problem reading text from the past is we interpret the detailsl with 20/20 hindsight which may cloud our judgements by using 21st century criteria. It is often more revealing to read the text as if we were contemporaries. This task is not always easy.

I once compared podiatry text by dividing pre and post literature using 1960 as the pivotal year and comparing the theories relating to causation and pathophysiology of skin callous. Remarkably pre 1960, the literature abounds with details which are not reflected in later literature.

I also had a look at verrucae and a similar pattern emerged. Serious podiatry text before 1960 concentrated on skin etiology and pathology whereas later literature presented bench text on how to practice podiatry but was light on etiology and pathophysiology. There has never been such a fruitful time as the 80s onwards for podiatry text. Neale's Common Foot Disorders is in its 6th /or 7yh rewrite which is a remarkable fact and clear indication something has happend over the 20 year period, that podiatry text has been around. However despite this and the plethora of podiatry text available most of it is directed as technical and not theoretical. Old text was arguably compiled to reflect both. This may accound for why they make more interesting reading

Wjat say you?

Camerom
Hey, what do I know ?