Background Several footwear design characteristics are known to have detrimental effects on the foot. However, one characteristic that has received relatively little attention is the point where the sole flexes in the sagittal plane. Several footwear assessment forms assume that this should ideally be located directly under the metarsophalangeal joints (MTPJs), but this has not been directly evaluated. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the influence on plantar loading of different locations of the shoe sole flexion point. Method Twenty-one asymptomatic females with normal foot posture participated. Standardised shoes were incised directly underneath the metatarsophalangeal joints, proximal to the MTPJs or underneath the midfoot. The participants walked in a randomised sequence of the three shoes whilst plantar loading patterns were obtained using the Pedar® in-shoe pressure measurement system. The foot was divided into nine anatomically important masks, and peak pressure (PP), contact time (CT) and pressure time integral (PTI) were determined. A ratio of PP and PTI between MTPJ2-3/MTPJ1 was also calculated. Results Wearing the shoe with the sole flexion point located proximal to the MTPJs resulted in increased PP under MTPJ 4–5 (6.2%) and decreased PP under the medial midfoot compared to the sub-MTPJ flexion point (−8.4%). Wearing the shoe with the sole flexion point located under the midfoot resulted in decreased PP, CT and PTI in the medial and lateral hindfoot (PP: −4.2% and −5.1%, CT: −3.4% and −6.6%, PTI: −6.9% and −5.7%) and medial midfoot (PP: −5.9% CT: −2.9% PTI: −12.2%) compared to the other two shoes. Conclusion The findings of this study indicate that the location of the sole flexion point of the shoe influences plantar loading patterns during gait. Specifically, shoes with a sole flexion point located under the midfoot significantly decrease the magnitude and duration of loading under the midfoot and hindfoot, which may be indicative of an earlier heel lift.
LINK
Background Understanding the kinematic characteristics of relapse clubfoot compared to successfully treated clubfoot could aid early identification of a relapse and improve treatment planning. The usage of a multi segment foot model is essential in order to grasp the full complexity of the multi-planar and multi-joint deformity of the clubfoot. Research question The purpose of this study was to identify differences in foot kinematics, using a multi-segment foot model, during gait between patients with Ponseti treated clubfoot with and without a relapse and age-matched healthy controls. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out including 11 patients with relapse clubfoot, 11 patients with clubfoot and 15 controls. Gait analysis was performed using an extended Helen Hayes model combined with the Oxford Foot Model. Statistical analysis included statistical parametric mapping and discrete analysis of kinematic gait parameters of the pelvis, hip, knee, ankle, hindfoot and forefoot in the sagittal, frontal and transversal plane. Results The relapse group showed significantly increased forefoot adduction in relation with the hindfoot and the tibia. Furthermore, this group showed increased forefoot supination in relation with the tibia during stance, whereas during swing increased forefoot supination in relation with the hindfoot was found in patients with relapse clubfoot compared with non-relapse clubfoot. Significance Forefoot adduction and forefoot supination could be kinematic indicators of relapse clubfoot, which might be useful in early identification of a relapse clubfoot. Subsequently, this could aid the optimization of clinical decision making and treatment planning for children with clubfoot.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: The design and manufacturing of effective foot orthoses is a complex multidisciplinary problem involving biomedical and gait pattern aspects, technical material and geometric design elements as well as psychological and social contexts. This complexity contributes to the current trial-and-error and experience-based orthopedic footwear practice in which a major part of the expertise is implicit. This hampers knowledge transfer, reproducibility and innovation. OBJECTIVE/METHODS: A systematic review of literature has been performed to find evidence of explicit knowledge, quantitative guidelines and design motivations of pedorthists. RESULTS: 17 studies have been included. No consensus is found on which measurable parameters ensure proper foot and ankle functioning. Parameters suggested are: neutral foot positioning and control of rearfoot motion, maximum arch, but also tibial internal/external rotation as well as a three point force system. Also studies evaluating foot orthoses centering on the diagnosis or orthosis type find no clear guidelines for treatment or for measuring the effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A gap in the translation from diagnosis to a specific, customized and quantified effective orthosis design is identified. Suggested solutions are both top-down, fitting of patient data in simulations, as well as bottom-up, quantifying current practices of pedorthists in order to develop new practical guidelines and evidence-based procedures.
