Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

POP casting vs Impression box casting

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Robertisaacs, Aug 29, 2006.

  1. efuller

    efuller MVP


    I think it is possible to get the same shape of the finished product with either casting method. You can add an intrinsic post to a cast from a foam box. If that everted the heel you could shape the heel with a medial heel skive to get it back to "vertical". You can also carve out of the arch to increase the arch height. It wouldn't be easy, but it can be done.

    There is nothing magical about casting the foot in neutral position.

    Eric
     
  2. Kursh Mohammed

    Kursh Mohammed Active Member

    Robert you were very quick to caste judgement, if you look back to my first post I stated clearly a 'standard functional device' and I also mentioned that EVA can be relatively ok with the use of a foam box. Again how can you critisize my experience, this is not needed for.

    A standard functional device i.e. a rigid device not made from EVA.


     
  3. Just my suspicion. How many feet HAVE you cast using foam? Yourself I mean, rather than ones others have cast.


    The reason being, there are things you are saying about foam which are simply not true. That seems the likeliest reason.

    But you are right. Speculation on my part as to why you hold a view is not so fruitful as debate on whether the view is accurate.

    As too a "standard functional device", that's a tricky point. Do you mean a canonical root device? Because in truth, very few people I've met still use that. In fact, I don't know anyone who finds neutral by the 2:1 rule found in clinical biomechanics, and who never uses skives, mortons, reverse mortons and suchlike (all of which came later). So the root FFO is not really "standard" As to functional, you've said yourself that they are all functional. Better to be specific. Do you mean, in the sentance below, a functional device as in a root ffo or a device which changes the function of the foot?

    What was the literature you were referring to btw? Just so Robin can go read it ;-).

    As to EVA, I will say that the material it is made of, EVA or poly, and the foot capture method used in no way affects whether a device is "functional" or not in the adjective sense, rather than the noun sense.

    And how important is the noun sense? As eric says there is nothing intrinsically meritorious about a root ffo over an EVA device cast to a different protocol. One cannot say which gives greater effect without evindence...

    I would be interested in your view on the comments I made on "cast correction" by the by.
     
  4. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    As I said before, you said "functional device" , not standard functional device. Not that it matters, it still wouldn't have made any more sense. Besides which, you had already said all of this before giving mention to a "standard functional device"

    Prior to this, no one was talking about Root style devices specifically so I am not sure why you feel that the comparison of foam box vs POP for a Root style device is so important.

    I know of very few practitioners who actuallly prescribe Root devices as you describe them

    Clearly not - I don't seem to be the only one not on board.



    I guess we are moving away from the debate about POP vs Foam box into whether or not a traditional Root style device is really something for use in todays biomechanics.
     
  5. caf002

    caf002 Active Member

    I suggest you give the STS casting sox a nudge. Accurate and simple to use, and ready to send to a lab in minutes Please visit www.stssox.com for more info

    Cheers
     
  6. My Rt hon friend has correctly and appositely stated the law. We are getting a little far afield.

    Perhaps I might summarize, and try to bring back to the point.

    The post which caused the spluttering initially, was this one.

    From there the debate has somewhat shifted into a discussion on terminology as to whether a functional orthotic is a Root device, or a device which affects a functional change in the foot.

    There are, for me, two core questions here.

    If we take functional device to mean a Root device (for clarity) there is a problem I have with Kursh's initial postings.

    Specifically:-

    This Implies that a device which is NOT a Root device is not a "good" device and will not acheive a "good outcome". So the main beef we have is not whether you can make a traditional root device with a Foam cast, but whether you can make an effective device with a foam cast.

    The second point is of lesser importance and is a terminology one. Kursh is using "functional foot orthoses" to mean the type of device described by root (stop me if I'm wrong here). Round these parts, Kursh, we tend to describe that as a "root standard" device, because any device which changes function can be described as a functional device. The term "functional" is not trademarked so we use it in the adjective sense. This is really not a big deal, and there is little profit in debating what functional foot orthotic SHOULD mean. Clearly it means different things to different people.

    I move that for the purpose of this debate we describe a rigid poly type device cast to root protocol as a Root device and leave the term FFO to one side.

    Which brings us back to point one. Is it your contention, Kursh, that a cast taken in foam cannot produce a clinically effective device as the above quotes seem to indicate.
     
  7. cpoc103

    cpoc103 Active Member

    Sorry guys just coming to this thread a wee bit late.

    The original question posted by Robert some years ago was what do people prefer in ways of casting, foam vs pop. The thread has taken an amazing twist on opinions about standard and functional and general terms of reference in bio.. I have just read all 85 replies took me a while lol.

    So to the original question, I have recently started working at a new practice where we use foam boxes, this is the way they have been casting for many years and thousands of pts. I would have to agree with Robert there is no better or worse way to cast be it pop or foam. It depends on the clinician taking the cast to start off with, also I dont find it unbelievably difficult to Ax the negative mould comparison to the foot. yes you dont have the exact shape to put alongside but you can see any glaring protrusions or misshapes that dont look quite right.

    Kursh you say foam box is an inaccurate way to cast as it does not give you true neutral, nor true plantar contours.

    I disagree completely I seem to be able to gain a pretty good and accurate representation of the foot, both in relative neutral and planar surface, and more to the point it helps the pain. now if this completely inaccurate way of casting was inadequate then why has our practice helped thousands of pts in solving their foot issues, and have hundreds of personal statements to back it up.

    Foam box, pop, cad/cam really does it matter what technique you use so long as the clinician takes a good representation of what the foot looks like, negative casting is simply a way of capturing a position, its what you do to it afterwards.
    And on a side note, plaster does not expand foam when you pour as ive done this lots.....
    sorry again for the late entry!!:drinks
    Col.
     
  8. Arthur.Clarke

    Arthur.Clarke Active Member

    NWB plaster casting was superior to foam box SWB casting as SWB casting resulted in artificial varus
    McPoil, TG; Comparison of three methods used to obtain a neutral plaster foot impression. Phys Ther. 1989
    NWB casting -good agreement with the clinically measured FF:RF. SWB Foam impressions had poor FF:RF agreement and the SWB foot resulted in an artificial increase in varus
    Davis I; A comparison of 4 methods of obtaining a negative impression of the foot.. JAPMA. 2002
     
  9. . Vivienne Chuter, Craig Payne, and Kathryn Miller Variability of Neutral-Position Casting of the Foot J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2003 93: 1-5.,

    NWB 16.5 degrees range in the RF:FF in the same foot with POP casting. Not exactly "good"

    . L. C. Trotter and M. R. Pierrynowski Ability of Foot Care Professionals to Cast Feet Using the Nonweightbearing Plaster and the Gait-Referenced Foam Casting Techniques J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, January 1, 2008; 98(1): 14 – 18

    SWB foam more repeatable than NWB POP.
     
  10. Arthur.Clarke

    Arthur.Clarke Active Member

    You love it don't you!
    Always trying to prove a point, jumping to the gun and making noise!

    My source vs yours.

    Your orthotics will of course be different to mine, my understanding is foam boxes create an inaccuracy and POP casts are more reliable before you start jumping and try to throttle this description this is my finding and I am happy saying foam boxes have no place in my clinic.

    Lastly I'm sure you can write about something more relevant in your biomec corner each month in Podiatry now, come on less of the history and more of the technical bits!
     
  11. Just offering references. Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like the study which showed Foam to be more repeatable than POP, or which showed a massive variation in RF/FF angles with POP casting then take it up with the authors, not with me!:eek:

    Personnally I use POP, foam and have in the past used scanning. I find they all have a place, and would not dismiss any of them. Whatever you may think of the accuracy of Foam, if you are faced with a wound up 6 year old autistic kid who is trying to beat you to death with a wooden train the speed of a foam cast is rather attractive...

    Hopefully this months Biomechanics Corner will be more to your liking. As a wise man once said, you cannot please all of the people all of the time. If you have any suggestions for specific topics, or indeed would like to pitch in and contribute, then you are welcome to contact me!
     
  12. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member


    Well, I'm convinced.
     
  13. blinda

    blinda MVP


    Yep. Tell me anything twice, and i`ll believe it. Regardless of evidence.
     
  14. You're good at biomechanics. You really, really are good at biomechanics. ;)

    Ha!

    Oh and while we're on studies the McPoil paper of 1989 worked by comparing the FF/RF between right and left feet, one time per tester, on an intratester basis. So only two casts were compared, with only one tester. Leave alone the horrifically inaccurate process of bisecting the rearfoot of a POP cast, you CAN'T bisect the rearfoot of a Foam box cast in the way that study did. All bisecting a foam cast rearfoot does is give you the angle at which it was pushed into the foam, which is nothing to do with the angle of the rearfoot.

    So I'm afraid that study proves very little.
     
  15. Yeah, get relevant Isaacs ;) Can we have a series of corners on forward dynamic modelling, please- starter for ten: http://www.smpp.northwestern.edu/~smpp_pub/Patton_masters_thesis.pdf. I'm sure the vast majority of the readership of shirmopody now will plug straight into this topic.

    Alternatively, lets try and shoot for one that no-one complains about.:empathy:

    Keep up the good work fella. You built that friction machine yet?
     
  16. Its a funny thing, but that IS what people always ask for when I talk to them on courses. More Dynamic modelling they say. I'll Get right on it that. ;)

    :pigs:

    Um. No. I been sort of busy. But I will! I really truly will.
     
  17. I got a relatively slack week coming up, so I'll put something together.... I don't know, you just can't get the staff these days.:cool:
     
  18. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    So much easier to criticise someone than it is to write yourself eh.

    Arthur, I look forward to you taking up Robert on his offer. What subject are you going to cover for the profession, and when can we expect to read it?
     
  19. Me Sir, Me Sir. I got one, I got one:
    Toobz.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsPb8e7USqI

    In fact, any of the Dexter experiments..... Dave.
    I need to work for the University of Southern California.

    This is one of my personal favourites:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UhC04okll0&feature=related

    Couldn't find the space bats one, which is my all time numero uno- "you bet your ass"
     
  20. blinda

    blinda MVP

  21. Now here's a plan!



    Don't we all feel like this when an "amazing" new insole comes out :eek:

    Actually, Simon Day in this reminds me strongly of... someone. :rolleyes:

    "Bats - are they really blind - or just taking the piss out of me?"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  22. I never really "got" golf. I did have a go at a driving range recently. I thought I was doing well until I was told that par does not refer to the number of swings you make before you make contact with the ball. Thus my Par 4 for 60 yards did not gain me the appreciation I'd expected.

    But we've gone all digressy again. Naughty us.
     
  23. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Look Rob I really tried to appreciate it honest...BUT ..............:rolleyes: :D

    Cheers
    D;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
  24. Arthur.Clarke

    Arthur.Clarke Active Member

    You should know? Double standards from you Ian, no you have never criticised anyone, come on seriously.
    I wouldn't say it's easy criticising anyone, if you have a valid point then it's fair to say you have an opinion, just an opinion which results into a criticism.
    I should leave the big boys to cast judgement and stay all quiet in my lonely world!

    I have nothing to prove to you or Robert, I'm wise enough to know what to read and learn for my benefit. I don't need to read Roberts Biomec corner which 99.9% of the time is non-relevent to clinical practice. But in terms of writing about something I think there are a number of subjects he can look into, simple subjects from which half or more of the readers will understand and read and LEARN and more relevent to clinical practice rather than the bold old history bull.
     
  25. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    I admit I engage in critical appraisal. I have no problem telling someone if I disagree with them, but will always try to explain what they've written that I disagree with and why. I would also hope they didn't take it personally. I too write things, and often have people disagree with and criticise me. That's cool, and not something I get upset about.

    But that isn't what you did Arthur. You told Rob he should write something else (but not what). That aint critical appraisal. Nor is it helpful.
     
  26. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    !


    Then Arthur please "big boy up" and give the rest of the profession the benefit of your obviously self confessed vast experience:rolleyes:

    You made the derisory accusations and were rude enough to make them personal.

    Put up or shut up !!! :mad:

    Cheers
    D;)
     
  27. Arthur.Clarke

    Arthur.Clarke Active Member

    Erm... NO!

    In what way are they personal? Flippin heck what are you reading? How have I in anyway implied a personal statement. DTT get a grip and stop making stupid accusations, I don't have time to prove nor be horrible to anyone.

    You are all big men and women so you should be able to take it! Come ON!

    Yes put or shut up DTT.
     
  28. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member



    !



    Thats just for starters Arthur, chill out !! you dont want to use foam casting fine but is there really any real need to make your critique so aggressive and personal ?

    As Ian said ," lets see your contribution" then we can all form an opinion :rolleyes:

    Cheers
    D;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
  29. Arthur.Clarke

    Arthur.Clarke Active Member

    Pardon me for being patronising but is this critical appraisal or dam right rude?

    Ok maybe it did sound a bit rude, he’s a grown man and I’m sure he can take it.
    Fair play to Roberts he is making a good conscious effort to educate people who know relatively little about biomechanics. Ok what should be a good topic to write about, let’s keep it simple right?

    Let’s make it clinically relevant, and more like a refreshing read,

    Negative casting techniques
    Different orthosis shell modifications
    Common problems with orthosis and further management
    Essential equipment during prescription analysis

    I work for a leading O & P company and along with our engineers we have developed numerous equipment from using laser technology through to our own CNC routers to make our factory efficient and nothing like any other and the amount of students I see who have little knowledge of general foot orthosis is shocking!
    I don’t need to brag and show the public what I and my department have achieved for the O & P world.
     
  30. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    I'd like to think it's a bit of both ;) Seriously though, I don't know which one or my posts or even which thread thats from (are you stalking me Arthur??) so I have no idea the context it was in.

    I don't think I called you aggressive did I?

    That's exactly the point - he puts an awful of of work into the column, and seems to get a lot of flack for it. I just don't understand why. Then again I never understood why anyone would watch a TV show and then write to Points of View to complain about it either.

    Now that is constructive. Now we are talking. If you'd come out with that initially we wouldn't even be having this exchange now.

    It isn't bragging. Nor is it 'proving yourself' to anyone (as you mentioned previously). Nor is it d1ck measuring. Its sharing knowledge. It's helping to contribute to a deeper understanding of topics and ideas which we all use on a daily basis. It's ongoing education and development. Isn't that essentially why we all log onto the Arena everyday?
     
  31. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member


    Now isnt that what it should all be about ???:drinks

    No need for anything else when we put our sensible head on ??

    Cheers
    D;)
     
  32. No, you don't need to brag, nor do you need to hide your light under a bushel. What is your real name and who do you work for? I suspect it is not Arthur C. Clarke. Remaining anonymous means you will always lack credibility; skeptics might say that neither you nor your department have achieved anything. Maybe your real name and a list of your publications?

    Exactly what have you and your department achieved?
     
  33. Kursh Mohammed

    Kursh Mohammed Active Member

    Nicely said!
     
  34. Arthur.Clarke

    Arthur.Clarke Active Member

    I have been away and couldn't reply in time.
    My real name Arthur Clarke Schmidtpeter.

    I am in now way not anonymous Simon.

    I have not been allowed to disclose any of my engineering work as of yet!

    When I get the right clearance I will let you know personally!

    All I can say at this moment is I work for German company and I have been for the last 4 years.
     
  35. Orthican

    Orthican Active Member

    Interesting thread.

    Robert,.... Man have I been there! ..(even lost some hair once with a rather fiery 8 year old)..And I could not agree more! There are many methods for us to utilize in our efforts to help someone. It is up to the practitioner to decide what technique would best suit the situation and the patient. And at the end of the day the outcome is all that matters!

    We all get "comfortable " with certain techniques over others. That's cool and as long as the patient wins there is no "wrong" way.
     
  36. cpoc103

    cpoc103 Active Member

    Coming to the plate late once again, I really do suck at this keeping in touch malarky, apologies.
    So just a couple of things that bugged me while reading along.
    First I think it was kursh who said you simply cannot make a functional biomechanical device by hand from foam box, damn I should prob let the boys in the lab know this, since their making anywhere from 30-40 pairs/ week BY HAND, without many issues, maybe the elves are helping it's close to Xmas.

    Secondly I think it was either Arthur or kursh who keeps going on about rf-Ff relationships, and how box creates more of a varus ff position. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a varus Ff an osseous fixed issue of stj, and is relatively rare. Do you mean supinatus? And why do you keep going on about this mythical magical standard device, what is this creature??
    I have never used a Standard device, especially since all my pts are not standard.

    Col. :santa:
     
Loading...

Share This Page