Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
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 (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Data are limited on the various orthotic devices available for patients with Stage II posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD). Foot kinematics observed while walking with an orthotic device are hypothesized to be associated with clinical outcomes and could be used to refine future device designs.
Fifteen subjects (age, 63.6 ± 6.8 years) with Stage II PTTD walked in the lab under four conditions: (1) shoe only (control condition), (2) shoe with a custom solid AFO (Arizona Co, Mesa, AZ), (3) shoe with a custom articulated AFO (Arizona Co, Mesa, AZ), and (4) shoe with an off-the-shelf AFO (AirLift, DJ Orthopedics). Kinematic data were collected to determine the degree of hindfoot inversion, forefoot plantarflexion (reflective of raising the MLA), and forefoot adduction associated with each condition.
The custom articulated device was associated with greater hindfoot inversion compared to the shoe only condition at loading response (p = 0.002), mid-stance (p < 0.001), and terminal stance (p = 0.02). The custom articulated device, custom solid device, and off-the-shelf device were associated with greater forefoot plantarflexion compared to the shoe only condition across all four phases of stance. There were no differences between any of the devices and the shoe condition associated with forefoot adduction.
The custom devices were associated with greater hindfoot inversion and forefoot plantarflexion compared to walking with only a shoe, while the off-the-shelf device was associated with forefoot plantarflexion but no change in hindfoot motion. None of the devices corrected forefoot abduction compared to the shoe only condition.
The current biomechanical data may aid in understanding the clinical outcomes seen using these devices as well as provide data to support new designs.