Home Forums Marketplace Table of Contents Events Member List Site Map Register Mark Forums Read



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.


Tags: , , ,

No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Reply
Submit Thread >  Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Google Submit to Yahoo! This Submit to Technorati Submit to StumbleUpon Submit to Spurl Submit to Netscape  < Submit Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 27th June 2007, 06:11 AM
NewsBot's Avatar
NewsBot NewsBot is offline
The Admin that posts the news.
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Zoo, where all good monkeys should be
Posts: 13,612
Join Date: Jan 2006
Marketplace reputation 53% (0)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 584 Times in 474 Posts
Default No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads
A randomized controlled trial of two types of in-shoe orthoses in children with flexible excess pronation of the feet.
Whitford D, Esterman A.
Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Jun;28(6):715-23
Quote:
BACKGROUND: Orthoses for children with flexible excess pronation are estimated to cost Australian parents millions of dollars per year; however, there is no high-level evidence that orthoses improve function or reduce pain.

METHODS: A randomized parallel, single-blinded, controlled trial of custom-made and ready-made orthoses was conducted in children between the ages of 7 and 11 years with bilateral flexible excess pronation. The diagnosis was based on calcaneal eversion and navicular drop. Outcomes included gross motor proficiency, self-perception, exercise efficiency, and pain. Measurements were taken at baseline, and at 3 and 12 months. Of the 178 children who participated at baseline, 160 continued to the end of the trial.

RESULTS: After randomization, baseline characteristics were similar between the three treatment groups (custom-made, ready-made, and control). Statistical modeling demonstrated that although for most outcome measures there were statistically significant trends over time, none of the group comparisons were statistically significant. A sub-group analysis of those presenting with pain found no significant differences at 3 or 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS: This study found no evidence to justify the use of in-shoe orthoses in the management of flexible excess foot pronation in children.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 27th June 2007, 01:52 PM
Admin2's Avatar
Admin2 Admin2 is offline
Administrator
 
About:
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 3,897
Join Date: May 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 139 Times in 123 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Related threads:
Flat feet long term prognosis for juveniles
Foot orthoses and asymptomatic pediatric flatfoot
Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children
Bibliography wanted on children foot problems in schools
Research info on prevalence of pronated feet
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 28th June 2007, 03:20 AM
Anthony Jagger DPM Anthony Jagger DPM is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winona Lake IN USA
Posts: 15
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Fellow skeptics,

Are Whitford & Esterman qualified to evaluate children for this "flexible excess pronation"?
Whitford apparantly is a family medicine practitoner with Esterman being a statistician.
I , maybe with a little paranoia, think that the journal is looking for evidence , although it is may contain invalid and research , that orthoses are useless.

Do I have a point here?

Tony Jagger
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 28th June 2007, 03:47 AM
davidh's Avatar
davidh davidh is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Powys, Wales.
Posts: 1,341
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 144
Thanked 133 Times in 109 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

I agree Tony,
In fairness to the authors I haven't read the Paper, but I do tend to query this type of research, which can be very loaded against whatever therapy is being tested.
__________________
.................................................. ..........................................
David Holland MSc(Bioeng), BSc(Hons) Pod Med.
Expert Witness - Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.
2014 Individual Member - Expert Witness Institute.

Email: dmholland@dunelm.org.uk

Correspondence Address: David Holland, The Nuffield Hospital, Scraptoft Lane, Leicester LE5 1HY.
.................................................. ..........................................
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 28th June 2007, 11:18 PM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Found some other evidence. Below are some bits i cut and pasted from a literature review in a Paper called Orthotic Treatment of Flat Feet in Children with Low Muscle Tone By Carolyn Kates, MS, PT. Its mainly neurology publications but interesting nonetheless. So far as i know the literature review was never published other than online. You can see the whole article http://www.boyercc.org/docs/print/EB..._Treatment.doc here.

Quote:
Martin, K. (2004). Effects of supramalleolar orthoses on postural stability in
children with Down syndrome. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology,
46, 406-411.

Martin (2004) studied fourteen children with Down syndrome and hypotonia between the ages of 3-½ years to 8 years. This researcher compared a group of children wearing orthoses above the ankle, supramalleolar orthoses, with a group of children not wearing orthoses, over a period of 10 weeks. Standardized motor tests were used to measure the children’s progress. Joint laxity was taken into consideration as a potential influence on the treatment response. Significant improvement was observed in the group of children wearing the orthoses that could not be attributed solely to maturation and growth. The amount of joint laxity in each individual child did not affect the outcome.

Selby-Silverstein, L., Hillstrom, H. J., & Palisano, R. J. (2001). The effect of foot orthoses on standing foot posture and gait of young children with Down
syndrome. NeuroRehabilitation, 16(3), 183-193.

Selby-Silverstein, Hillstrom, and Palisano (2001) used advanced technological measurements in a gait analysis laboratory to study 16 children with Down syndrome and a control group of 10 children without disabilities. All 26 children in this study ranged in age from 3-6 years. The orthoses in this study were cut below the ankle (submalleolar orthoses). The children with Down syndrome had more neutral foot alignment, showed decreased toeing-out during walking, and were more consistent in their walking patterns while wearing the orthoses compared to not wearing them. Speed of walking did not change between the two conditions.

Kates, C. L. (2000). A comparison of gait plate to regular orthoses on toeing-out walking patterns in a child with Down syndrome. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Kates (2000) performed a single subject design study on a 4-year old child with Down syndrome and hypotonia comparing two types of supramalleolar orthoses and a control baseline of not wearing orthoses. One type of orthoses had a design at the toe to control toeing-out, called a gait-plate design, and a rigid, carbon fiber laminate on the bottom. The other type of orthoses had a regular toe design. The gait-plate design of orthoses with the rigid bottom was associated with an increased step length and speed of walking compared to either the orthoses with the regular toe design without the rigid bottom or the baseline of not wearing orthoses.


Grossman, S. L., (1990). The effect of pelite foot orthoses on the gait of children with Down Syndrome. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Grossman (1990) studied four subjects between the ages of 2.5-5.5 years comparing hand fabricated, soft plastic, submalleolar orthoses, (Pelite and moleskin) to the condition of not wearing orthoses. A study of footprints, called pedographs, demonstrated improvement in three of the four subjects in the areas of decreased toeing-out and increased step length. Younger children with mild flat feet demonstrated greater change then older child with moderate flat feet.
Hope it is of interest

Regards
Robert
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 1st July 2007, 05:20 AM
Shane Toohey's Avatar
Shane Toohey Shane Toohey is offline
Senior Member
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 191
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 18
Thanked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Comrades,

Maybe some of you can access the whole article and outline the methodology used for creating the custom made devices? Who was the prescriber and what is his/their experience?
What ready made devices were used?
How did they measure function and assess if there were any changes.
What pain measuring system was used?

My personal comment is that if I had a child with painful feet aged between 7 and 11 these guys wouldn't be on the top of my list to see. If the average pod cannot make a difference to these painful conditions within 3 months I would hope they would refer elsewhere. I question the ethics of continuing the study for 12 months without getting any result.

I'll need convincing that this study was not conducted by a very crappy
academic.

Cheers
Shane
__________________
Shane Toohey
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 1st July 2007, 01:16 PM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,487
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,134 Times in 1,175 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

It wasn't too long ago, that many "experts" said that there was no evidence that foot orthoses changed the movements of the foot and lower extremity and therefore speculated whether foot orthoses actually did anything at all, other than offering a placebo effect. Then along came better measurement techniques (3D kinematic analysis combined with kinetic analysis and inverse dynamics techniques) and better custom orthosis studies that have now produced a whole series of papers that show foot orthoses not only change motion patterns but also change gait kinetics. I wonder what happened to all those "experts" that said orthoses didn't work??

In much the same fashion, there are many pediatricians and orthopedic surgeons who think foot orthoses for children are worthless, think that podiatrists who make orthoses for children with flatfeet are unethical and are only acting to line their wallets and have, as a result, designed research studies that will have little ability to show how foot orthoses mechanically affect the feet and lower extremities of children. It seems that if these physicians had become more familiar with the orthosis literature that shows their therapeutic and biomechanical effectiveness, they would design their studies more appropriately to more realistically show what they do and don't do.

That is not to say that the above researchers designed their research poorly, since I have not had the opportunity to personally read their paper. However, if anyone can access a copy of the paper and send it my way, I would be happy to read it over and give my objective opinion on the paper and it's design.

On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of podiatrists around the world that are making custom foot orthoses for children that I , and many other podiatrists, wouldn't think of treating at all with foot orthoses. It only takes a few of these unethical individuals in a community to spoil things for the other podiatrists who are appropriately treating only those children that actually need treatment. So we can't just blame the rest of the medical profession for research projects such as this, we must assume some of the blame ourselves if we are to be fair about it.
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 3rd July 2007, 08:47 PM
esterman esterman is offline
A Welcome New Poster
 
About:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
Join Date: Jul 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

I think that it is a bit rich to criticize a paper without having read it. Dr Whitford trained as a pediatric physiotherapist - she is not a family physician. Foot and Ankle International has a strong peer review process, the paper would not have been accepted if the study was of poor quality. Finally, Australian podiatrists were involved in the study and undertook the foot examinations.

Adrian Esterman PhD
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 3rd July 2007, 09:25 PM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,487
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,134 Times in 1,175 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by esterman
I think that it is a bit rich to criticize a paper without having read it. Dr Whitford trained as a pediatric physiotherapist - she is not a family physician. Foot and Ankle International has a strong peer review process, the paper would not have been accepted if the study was of poor quality. Finally, Australian podiatrists were involved in the study and undertook the foot examinations.

Adrian Esterman PhD
Adrian:

Thanks for coming on to Podiatry Arena defend your paper. Just a few questions, please. What exact types of foot orthoses were made for your subjects? How much experience in treating children with foot orthoses did the clinicians have who evaluated, casted and prescribed foot orthoses for your study? How were the subjects casted(i.e. plaster, foam box, contact pins, or optical)? Was STJ neutral used or any casting modifications used such as plantarflexing the first ray during casting?

Did you have a foot orthosis prescription protocol to establish prescribing guidelines? In other words, how did you decide on the following orthosis prescription parameters in your young subjects:

1. Degree of heel inversion of positive cast.
2. Amount of medial heel skive/Blake inverted technique.
3. Amount of medial longitudinal arch fill.
4. Height of heel cup.
5. Thickness of plastic.
6. Type of rearfoot post and degrees of rearfoot post motion.
7. Presence or absence of medial/lateral flanges.

In addition, were there any controls for shoes being worn? In other words, were the children allowed to wear any shoes with their orthoses and was heel counter eversion or midsole durometer inspected by the researchers to see if shoe biomechanics could have affected orthosis function?

The reason I ask you these questions is because I have been treating children with flatfeet with foot orthoses for over 20 years and have found them to be quite remarkable in the successful conservative treatment of painful feet and lower extremities due to excessive pronation moments acting across the subtalar joint during weightbearing activities. Therefore, when I hear of a study that goes against what myself, and many of my teachers and my podiatric colleagues around the world have been experiencing for the last few decades in our own patients, I have to wonder what the researchers are doing with their foot orthoses that does not allow them to see the therapeutic benefits of foot orthoses that I have seen during my practice career.

Congratulations on having your paper published in Foot and Ankle International, the official journal of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society.
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************

Last edited by Kevin Kirby : 4th July 2007 at 04:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 3rd July 2007, 11:35 PM
Shane Toohey's Avatar
Shane Toohey Shane Toohey is offline
Senior Member
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 191
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 18
Thanked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Dear Adrian,

You wrote:
Quote:
I think that it is a bit rich to criticize a paper without having read it. Dr Whitford trained as a pediatric physiotherapist - she is not a family physician. Foot and Ankle International has a strong peer review process, the paper would not have been accepted if the study was of poor quality. Finally, Australian podiatrists were involved in the study and undertook the foot examinations.
The result of the research was very poor and this goes completely against my experience. I reserve the right to question and criticize. Because you were published does not mean that the results have to be accepted without examination. When I was studying clinical research methods quite a few years ago I certainly came across published work that proved to have inaccurate conclusions, including even double blind multi centred studies. So congratulations on being published, but do you expect someone who has been using this therapy for over 20 years to just stop because of the headlines of your study. You do have to defend it properly.

The study could easily be accepted and still have non sequiters (?) included.
I asked for more detail on the methodology and you have not responded to that.
You can also do harm by getting the headlines of your paper published resulting in children who could be treated not getting treatment. You may appreciate that there are many ways of doing something that comes under an umbrella of "custom-made orthoses". Despite this your results mean that your methodology did not work rather than other ways of doing therapy would not work. Hopefully this makes sense, I'm trying to be succinct.

I'm very happy to continue this discussion but need more detail on what you guys have done.

Cheers
Shane
__________________
Shane Toohey
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 4th July 2007, 10:06 AM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,487
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,134 Times in 1,175 Posts
Default Questions regarding research

I have now been able download the full paper done by Deirdre Whitford and Adrian Esterman on treating children's flatfeet with foot orthoses (I'm assuming Adrian may be too busy to respond). Here is what they did in their research:

1. Children between the ages of 7 and 11 with bilateral "flexible excess pronation" were studied.

2. Three study groups were included: custom orthoses, Vasyli ready-made orthoses and no orthoses.

3. Custom orthoses casted with plaster by "method described by Michaud" and then were sent to an orthosis lab (there was no detail on what orthosis prescribing parameters were used, I assume all orthoses were balanced with heel vertical). Orthoses were "rigid" and with vinyl topcovers to end of orthosis. No mention was made within the paper as to rearfoot posts, medial heel skives, heel cup depth, what "rigid" meant, thickness of medial expansion plaster or whether the casts were balanced inverted.

4. "Exercise efficiency" was measured as maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) using a multi-stage 20-m shuttle run test. Unfortunately, whether known by the researchers or reviewers of this paper or not, VO2 max is not a measure of "exercise efficiency" but is rather a measure rather of maximal oxygen uptake ability of the subject. If "exercise efficiency" was to be measured, then the oxygen uptake at steady state exercise with and without the foot orthoses would need to be measured with a children wearing oxygen uptake apparatus doing a standard exercise task, such as running on a treadmill or riding a bicycle ergometer. The researchers did not do any of this in their study. So I consider this part of the experiment to be not meaningful and their testing or results from their study should not in any way be concluded to have anything to do with "exercise efficiency".

5. Pain was measured as a parameter also. However, it was not clear whether the pain measured by their Varni Thompson Pediatric Pain Questionnaire related to symptoms in their feet and lower extremities only or if whole body pain was included.

6. The authors listed only two or three papers that showed the many positive kinetic and kinematic and therapeutic effects of orthoses. I am very surprised that these Australian researchers did not mention the fine work from their fellow Aussie, Angela Evans, PhD, regarding her successful treatment of children with foot orthoses with "growing pains" (Evans A: Relationship between "growing pains" and foot posture in children. Single-case experimental designs in clinical practice. JAPMA, 93(2): 111-117, 2003.) I saw much more negative foot orthosis research being reviewed by the authors than positive foot orthosis research. If the authors are following along, I would be happy to provide them with my current list of references regarding the numbers of positive therapeutic, kinetic and kinematic research papers that show why ethical podiatrists prescribe foot orthoses for children and why there is ample justification for the use of foot orthoses in children with symptomatic flatfoot deformity.

All in all, it seems to have been a study that was carried out in a careful manner and, other than the complaints listed above, I have no problems with the study. The last paragraph of the study does bother me in that it starts out rightly pointing out that the results from the study are inconclusive and that foot pronation may cause injury at a later age and the treatment with orthoses may need to be carried out longer than their study. Then, after making this reasonable statement, their last sentence of the paper was "There appears to be little justification for the use of in-shoe orthoses in children of this age with this condition." Where did that statement come from when the authors appeared to understand the limitations of their study in the earlier sections of their paper?! This last statement worries me about the objectivity of the authors.

I feel that the last sentence of the paper should have read instead: "This study did not show any significant effects of custom or non-custom foot orthoses on children so that further study will be necessary to determine why many clinicians report significant reductions in pain in flatfooted children with foot orthosis treatment."
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 5th July 2007, 06:33 AM
Shane Toohey's Avatar
Shane Toohey Shane Toohey is offline
Senior Member
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 191
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 18
Thanked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Thanks for passing on that information, Kevin.

I can now be a little more specific and make this statement:

A child with a painful foot condition (not described) is unlikely to be helped within 12 months by the following treatment method.
Quote:
Custom orthoses casted with plaster by "method described by Michaud" and then were sent to an orthosis lab. Orthoses were "rigid" and with vinyl topcovers to end of orthosis.
They would also not be helped by the use of Vasyli orthoses.

The point I want to make to the authors of the paper is that custom made orthoses and the therapeutic result can/will vary significantly when:
different casting methods are used and even by who takes the casts:
what prescription is used for the lab to work on the casts: what lab is used: and how the intervention is followed up ( in that orthoses are often fine-tuned/tweaked to maximize the result. In fact to get the desired result it is not unusual for a podiatrist to add wedges and pads of one sort or another to preformed devices as well. Seriously, how much did your methodology involve exploring how to get a positive result (as would occur in an optimal treatment environment)? I don't think it did, otherwise you wouldn't have children in pain for 12 months. That would only be done by someone who was not experienced in producing clinical results with this therapy.

So if you headline:
Quote:
Orthoses for children with flexible excess pronation are estimated to cost Australian parents millions of dollars per year
and conclude that:
Quote:
This study found no evidence to justify the use of in-shoe orthoses in the management of flexible excess foot pronation in children.
and say that you tested custom made and preformed orthoses to arrive at that conclusion.

That conclusion is unfounded! You can only say that if you do things the way you describe then you don't get results.

There are probably a few lessons from this study. I do still see unnecessary poor results in orthotic therapy that have been salvaged by a bit of tweaking.

Cheers
Shane
__________________
Shane Toohey
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 6th July 2007, 10:11 PM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,487
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,134 Times in 1,175 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Sorry Shane, there is probably too much heat in the "research kitchen" to answer our questions or reply to our comments.
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 8th July 2007, 06:04 AM
Dean Hartley Dean Hartley is offline
Senior Member
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 67
Join Date: Oct 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
It wasn't too long ago, that many "experts" said that there was no evidence that foot orthoses changed the movements of the foot and lower extremity and therefore speculated whether foot orthoses actually did anything at all, other than offering a placebo effect. Then along came better measurement techniques (3D kinematic analysis combined with kinetic analysis and inverse dynamics techniques) and better custom orthosis studies that have now produced a whole series of papers that show foot orthoses not only change motion patterns but also change gait kinetics. I wonder what happened to all those "experts" that said orthoses didn't work??
Interesting thread. Kevin would you be able to point me in the right direction of these more recent research papers which show the affects of foot orthoses changing motion patterns and gait kinetics?

Regards,

Dean
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 8th July 2007, 07:57 AM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,487
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,134 Times in 1,175 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Hartley
Interesting thread. Kevin would you be able to point me in the right direction of these more recent research papers which show the affects of foot orthoses changing motion patterns and gait kinetics?

Regards,

Dean
Dean and Colleagues:

Here is an excerpt from my most recently published paper on foot orthoses (Kirby, KA: Foot orthoses: therapeutic efficacy, theory and research evidence for their biomechanical effect. Foot Ankle Quarterly, 18(2):49-57, 2006):

Quote:
Research Evidence of Biomechanical Effect of Foot Orthoses

Up until the mid-1970’s, very little research had been published on the biomechanical effect of foot orthoses. Therefore, most of the theories on orthosis function that were proposed during that time were not based on experimental evidence. However, in the last 30 years, with technological advances in computerized three-dimensional (3D) motion analysis systems, force plates, pressure insoles, pressure mats, accelerometers, strain gauges, and computer modelling techniques, researchers have made great progress toward generating sufficient experimental data to allow a better understanding of the effect of foot orthoses on the kinematics and kinetics of gait and on how they may produce their therapeutic efficacy.

Much of the early research on foot orthoses focused on the kinematic effects of orthoses on the biomechanics of running. Even though most podiatrists of the time routinely used foot orthoses to successfully treat painful pathologies of the rearfoot in athletes and non-athletes, early research on foot orthoses did not show significant changes in the kinematics of the rearfoot during running that led many to question the mechanism of action of foot orthoses (Bates et al., 1979; Smith et al., 1986; Novick et al., 1990; McCulloch et al., 1993). However, in the last five years, there has been an important increase in experimental studies using both 3D kinematic and kinetic analysis of the foot and lower extremity during running (Butler et al., 2003; Laughton et al., 2003; Mundermann et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2003; MacLean et al., 2005). The newer research that has investigated the changes in internal forces and internal moments (i.e. kinetics) seen with foot orthoses has yielded the most significant evidence to date regarding the mechanical effect of foot orthoses.

Experimental studies that have measured the effects of foot orthoses on the kinematics and kinetics of the foot and lower extremities in runners have shown the following significant mechanical results: a decrease in maximum rearfoot eversion angle (Bates et al., 1979; Smith et al, 1986; MacLean et al., 2005), a decrease in maximum rearfoot eversion velocity (Smith et al., 1986; MacLean et al., 2005), a decrease in maximum internal ankle inversion moment (Mundermann et al., 2003a; Williams et al., 2003, MacLean et al., 2005), a decrease in impact peak and maximum vertical loading rate (Mundermann et al., 2003a), a decrease in maximum ankle dorsiflexion angle (MacLean et al., 2005), a decrease in maximum internal tibial rotation (Nawoczenski et al., 1995; Williams et al., 2003) and a decrease in internal rotation and adduction of the knee (Stackhouse et al., 2004). These studies conclusively demonstrate that foot orthoses are able to alter both the motion patterns and internal forces and moments acting within the foot and lower extremity. As a result, there is now considerable experimental evidence to support the idea that foot orthoses are able to achieve their impressive therapeutic results via mechanical reduction of stresses within the injured tissues of the body. This “tissue stress theory”, first proposed by McPoil and Hunt in 1995, has also been advocated by other authors as the optimal method of prescribing mechanical therapies, such as foot orthoses, for injured patients (McPoil & Hunt, 1995; Kirby, 1997; Payne, 1998; Fuller, 2000; Kirby, 2002).

Research studies that have measured the kinematics and kinetics of the foot and lower extremity during walking have also demonstrated significant mechanical effects from orthoses. In a study using varus and valgus wedged foot orthoses in walking subjects, decreased rearfoot pronation and decreased rearfoot pronation velocity with varus wedged orthoses and increased rearfoot pronation with valgus wedged orthoses were noted to occur (Nester et al., 2001; Nester et al., 2003). In addition, foot orthoses in patients with RA showed significant reductions in rearfoot eversion during stance and also showed a reduction in internal tibial rotation after 12 months of wearing the orthoses (Woodburn et al., 2003).

References:

Bates BT, Osternig LR, Mason B, James LS: Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. Am J Sp Med, 7:328-31, 1979.

Smith LS, Clarke TE, Hamill CL, Santopietro F: The effects of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running. JAPMA, 76:227-232, 1986.

Novick A, Kelley DL: Position and movement changes of the foot with orthotic intervention during loading response of gait. J Ortho Sp Phys Ther, 11:301-312, 1990.

McCulloch MU, Brunt D, Linden DV: The effect of foot orthotics and gait velocity on lower limb kinematics and temporal events of stance. J Ortho Sp Phys Ther, 17:2-10, 1993.

Butler RJ, McClay-Davis IS, Laughton CM, Hughes M. Dual-function foot orthosis: Effect on shock and control of rearfoot motion. Foot Ankle Intl, 24:410-414, 2003.

Laughton CA, McClay-Davis IS, Hamill J: Effect of strike pattern and orthotic intervention on tibial shock during running. J Appl Biomech, 19:153-16, 2003.

Mundermann A, Nigg BM, Humble RN, Stefanyshyn DJ. Foot orthoses affect lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during running. Clin Biomech, 18:254-262, 2003a.

Williams DS, McClay-Davis I, Baitch SP: Effect of inverted orthoses on lower extremity mechanics in runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35:2060-2068, 2003.

MacLean CL, Hamill J: Short and long-term influence of a custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity dynamics in injured runners. Annual ISB Meeting, Cleveland, September 2005.

Nawoczenski DA, Cook TM, Saltzman CL: The effect of foot orthotics on three-dimensional kinematics of the leg and rearfoot during running. J Ortho Sp Phys Ther, 21:317-327, 1995.

Stackhouse CL, Davis IM, Hamill J: Orthotic intervention in forefoot and rearfoot strike running patterns. Clin Biomech, 19:64-70, 2004.

McPoil TG, Hunt GC: Evaluation and management of foot and ankle disorders: Present problems and future directions. JOSPT, 21:381-388, 1995.

Kirby KA.: Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, Arizona, 1997.

Payne CB: The past, present, and future of podiatric biomechanics. JAPMA, 88:53-63, 1998.

Fuller EA: Reinventing biomechanics. Podiatry Today, 13:3, December 2000.

Kirby KA: Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics II: Precision Intricast Newsletters, 1997-2002. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, AZ, 2002.

Nester CJ, Hutchins S, Bowker P: Effect of foot orthoses on rearfoot complex kinematics during walking gait. Foot Ankle Intl, 22:133-139, 2001.

Nester CJ, Van Der Linden ML, Bowker P: Effect of foot orthoses on the kinematics and kinetics of normal walking gait. Gait Posture, 17:180-187, 2003.

Woodburn J, Helliwell PS, Barker S: Changes in 3D joint kinematics support the continuous use of orthoses in the management of painful rearfoot deformity in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheum, 30:2356-2364, 2003.
Hope this helps.

I have also just completed a chapter titled: "Evolution of Foot Orthoses in Sports: Biomechanical Effects" for a book to be published by Springer next year "Athletic Footwear and Foot Orthoses in Sports Medicine" which will review the subject in more depth.
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************

Last edited by Kevin Kirby : 8th July 2007 at 02:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 9th July 2007, 12:26 AM
Hylton Menz Hylton Menz is offline
Senior Member
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 191
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 40 Times in 26 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Here we go again. A study is published with unfavourable results, and there's a reflex response to condemn it, even before the full paper has been read. By all means critique the paper, but please, don't make it so obvious that you have no intention of accepting the findings simply because they're negative.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12th July 2007, 05:58 PM
Whitford Whitford is offline
Podiatry Arena Rookie
 
About:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Join Date: Jul 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Adrian:

Thanks for coming on to Podiatry Arena defend your paper. Just a few questions, please. What exact types of foot orthoses were made for your subjects? How much experience in treating children with foot orthoses did the clinicians have who evaluated, casted and prescribed foot orthoses for your study? How were the subjects casted(i.e. plaster, foam box, contact pins, or optical)? Was STJ neutral used or any casting modifications used such as plantarflexing the first ray during casting?

Did you have a foot orthosis prescription protocol to establish prescribing guidelines? In other words, how did you decide on the following orthosis prescription parameters in your young subjects:

1. Degree of heel inversion of positive cast.
2. Amount of medial heel skive/Blake inverted technique.
3. Amount of medial longitudinal arch fill.
4. Height of heel cup.
5. Thickness of plastic.
6. Type of rearfoot post and degrees of rearfoot post motion.
7. Presence or absence of medial/lateral flanges.

In addition, were there any controls for shoes being worn? In other words, were the children allowed to wear any shoes with their orthoses and was heel counter eversion or midsole durometer inspected by the researchers to see if shoe biomechanics could have affected orthosis function?

The reason I ask you these questions is because I have been treating children with flatfeet with foot orthoses for over 20 years and have found them to be quite remarkable in the successful conservative treatment of painful feet and lower extremities due to excessive pronation moments acting across the subtalar joint during weightbearing activities. Therefore, when I hear of a study that goes against what myself, and many of my teachers and my podiatric colleagues around the world have been experiencing for the last few decades in our own patients, I have to wonder what the researchers are doing with their foot orthoses that does not allow them to see the therapeutic benefits of foot orthoses that I have seen during my practice career.

Congratulations on having your paper published in Foot and Ankle International, the official journal of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society.
Kevin

In answer to your queries:

The children in the custom-made orthoses intervention group received orthoses produced in an orthotics laboratory to the prescription of respected and experienced podiatrists who were employed on the research team and who, like you, were conviced of the value of these devices. The podiatrists used current methods for examination, casting, prescription, fitting and follow-up.

A foot orthosis prescription protocol was used and each of the issues you list was decided on a case by case basis based on the information gathered during examination of each child by the podiatrist.

Shoes were inspected during initial examination, and again when fitting the orthoses. Parents were advised of the suitability of the child's shoes for use with their orthoses and parents were provided with an information sheet about choosing suitable shoes if they needed to replace the child's shoes during the period of the trial. Most parents were compliant with this advice.

Children were not included or excluded from the trial on the basis of pain as in practice pain does not always determine whether a child will be prescribed orthoses. A subgroup analysis was carried out using the data of children who presented with lower limb pain at baseline. The findings of the subgroup analysis (which had sufficient power) were very similar to the findings of the trial overall.

We found a small improvement in pain at three months, which did not reach statistical significance, was not supported by improvement in the other parameters measured, and did not persist to twelve months. This small improvement may be responsible for the reinforcement of podiatrist and patient belief in these devices.

While this trial, a randomised control trial, provides the highest level of scientific evidence possible from a single trial, no single trial can definitively answer such a clinical question. I look forward to further scientific contributions to the body of knowledge about foot pain and its management.

Dee
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26th July 2007, 11:34 PM
Paul B Paul B is offline
Senior Member
 
About:
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane & Auckland
Posts: 54
Join Date: May 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Dear Dee, Adrian and Colleagues,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the publication of your paper. I am extremely familiar with the research conducted and would make the following comments:

I am disappointed that the paper "A randomized controlled trial of two types of in-shoe orthoses in children with flexible excess pronation of the feet. Whitford D, Esterman A. Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Jun;28(6):715-23" was published in the format that it was due to its potentially misleading conclusions.

Most importantly, the study design did not set out with an a-priori hypothesis to specifically test the effects of functional foot orthoses on the treatment of painful flat feet. Consequently, post hoc testing on samples of, at baseline, Controls n = 6, ready made orthoses n = 10 and custom made orthoses n = 11 was both methodologically flawed and scientifically unsound. Claims statistical power was achieved are not supported in the published article. With experience in understanding the precision of VAS’s, this is highly unlikely to have been achieved. More importantly, it is impossible for the reader of this article to independently and meaningfully make this judgement because the actual “cut off values” for what constituted a “painful foot” are not reported. The reader can only assume this was an arbitrary determination, thus further reducing merit of this conclusion, and raising uncertainty in the readers mind.

Further illustrating this point, no set diagnostic criteria was applied specifically to the “painful” flatfoot classification. Morphological classification is a separate issue, which has the potential to confuse and misrepresented the results.

Prudent podiatry practitioners have long since moved on from treating “asymptomatic” hypermobile flat feet, but unfortunately the published article confuses this issue, to the potential detriment of good clinical care. Most clinicians’ (as pointed out on this post) note the long established merit in treating correctly diagnosed symptomatic feet in children, accompanied by either the presence or absence of “flat feet”. The current research confirms the former statement, but miss-represents the later.

Another important point, pain is associated with inflammation and the typical timeframe for judging treatment (intervention) effectiveness is a matter of weeks, not three months as is the case with the post hoc testing performed here. This is a fundamental flaw in the papers logic, further reducing its credibility.

The reason why I’m expressing disappointment with this published article is that the above points were drawn to the author attention in good faith well before this paper was published. Should a contrary view be held, then it must be supported by the science, a point possibly missed by the journal reviewers.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 27th July 2007, 12:47 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Prudent podiatry practitioners have long since moved on from treating “asymptomatic” hypermobile flat feet,
This seems a rather large assumption to me. Perhaps i am in the "imprudent group" but i will often treat asymptomatic flat feet.

A rather liked Kevin Kirby's criteria, posted on another thread

Quote:
In addition, I also recommend treatment of asymptomatic children with maximally pronated STJs and/or flatfoot deformity if the patient has one of the following criteria:
1. Moderate-severe to severe flatfoot deformity and/or moderate to severe medial deviation of the STJ axis.
2. Family history of painful flatfoot deformity.
3. Significant gait pathology in walking or running that can be improved with foot orthosis treatment.
If i am imprudent i am in good company .

Respectfully
Robert
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 27th July 2007, 01:40 AM
DaVinci's Avatar
DaVinci DaVinci is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 633
Join Date: Jan 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 97
Thanked 53 Times in 38 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul B
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the publication of your paper. I am extremely familiar with the research conducted and would make the following comments: ..... (CUT).... The reason why I’m expressing disappointment with this published article is that the above points were drawn to the author attention in good faith well before this paper was published. Should a contrary view be held, then it must be supported by the science, a point possibly missed by the journal reviewers.
Certainly makes a mockery of the claim earlier in the thread that
Quote:
Foot and Ankle International has a strong peer review process, the paper would not have been accepted if the study was of poor quality.
That journal has become legendary for what slips through their peer review process.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 29th July 2007, 04:11 PM
Whitford Whitford is offline
Podiatry Arena Rookie
 
About:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Join Date: Jul 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Paul

Disappoinment all round I'm afraid. Your response fails to recognise the basic scientific principles on which this trial was conducted and the detail you quote is incorrect.

The participants in this trial were not chosen on the basis of pain because prescription of orthoses, at the time of the trial, was not limited to children with pain. There was a view, at that time, that in-shoe orthoses prevented progression of asymptomatic excess flexible pronation to a painful condition.

The a priori null hypothesis relating to pain was that pre and post measures of pain would not be significantly different between the treatment groups and over the trial period and they were not. Approximately 50% of all participants reported lower limb pain at baseline. The trial had sufficient power to demonstrate a reduction in pain in the treated groups compared with the control group had a reduction in pain occurred.

There IS a very stringent review process not only for publication of articles of this nature in FAI but also for the NHMRC funding received for this trial. This RCT underwent extensive high level review, was designed, conducted, and analysed on the basis of a priori hypotheses, and reported according to the principles of the CONSORT statement. No higher level of peer reviewed evidence is currently available from a single trial.

It is time to move on to producing further high level evidence to either refute or support the findings of this trial; and to build the current body of scientific knowledge about foot health in children and effective treatments to improve foot health and function.

Dee

Last edited by Whitford : 29th July 2007 at 04:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 7th August 2007, 09:10 AM
hurst07 hurst07 is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4
Join Date: Aug 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Hi Shane and the rest of you boys. The testosterone is intoxicating! Shane, i was just wondering why a child that was in pain wouldn't be on the top of your list to see? Doesn't that seem a little un ethical? It's just that symptomatic children are pushed to the top of the list in my practice, just wanted to share your thought's.

Another school of thought is: why do we treat if there are no symptoms?

Is anyone ever going to be able to answer this question? Will we believe them if they do?

The only way you would answer this one would be to do a massive retrospective study. Anyone got any spare time on their hands? Should be a doddle!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 7th August 2007, 11:58 AM
CraigT CraigT is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 590
Join Date: Oct 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 57
Thanked 73 Times in 55 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Shane, i was just wondering why a child that was in pain wouldn't be on the top of your list to see?
You have to re read the statement...
Quote:
My personal comment is that if I had a child with painful feet aged between 7 and 11 these guys wouldn't be on the top of my list to see.
Shane was saying that he would not see these practitioners if his child had symptomatic feet.

Methodology etc aside I do not find it surprising the result of this study... I find it staggering!
I am sure that I am not alone on this forum to say that children often have the most profoundly positive results with orthotic therapy (simple wedges, OTC or custom)...and that includes supposedly asymptomatic children (that is if you define pain as the only symptom...) is lack of co-ordination a symptom? non-specific growing pains?
Would I treat my asymptomatic child if they had hyperpronated feet? Without a moments hesitation.
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR

http://www.aspetar.com/
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 7th August 2007, 01:06 PM
Craig Payne's Avatar
Craig Payne Craig Payne is offline
Moderator
Professor of Life, The Universe and Everything
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,922
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 93
Thanked 850 Times in 585 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurst07
The only way you would answer this one would be to do a massive retrospective study.
Don't you mean prospective.
We already had this thread:
Foot orthoses and asymptomatic pediatric flatfoot
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et al’s (2010) paper in Nature on Barefoot Running
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 7th August 2007, 01:09 PM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,487
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 404
Thanked 2,134 Times in 1,175 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigT
I am sure that I am not alone on this forum to say that children often have the most profoundly positive results with orthotic therapy (simple wedges, OTC or custom)...and that includes supposedly asymptomatic children (that is if you define pain as the only symptom...) is lack of co-ordination a symptom? non-specific growing pains?
Would I treat my asymptomatic child if they had hyperpronated feet? Without a moments hesitation.
Craig:

I enjoy your enthusiasm. I was talking with one of the delegates at Biomechanics Summer School 2007 in the UK a few days ago about a case that your comments reminded me of. He approached me during one of the lecture breaks and told me this story:

"A few years ago when you lectured on the medial heel skive and treating children's flatfoot deformities at this seminar, I went back to my practice to apply this technique to a 13 year old girl who had excessively pronated feet, had poor self-esteem because she couldn't run or walk much without pain, and even walked with her head down, almost in shame. She had already had three pairs of foot orthoses that didn't work well to relieve her pain. Once I made the orthoses the way you described in your lecture with a medial heel skive, the girl came back to me happy, standing and walking tall and with extreme confidence in herself. It was simply amazing. I have told this story to many of the students and podiatrists I lecture to about not only the positive transformation in her gait but also in the amazing positive change in her personality with being able to walk and run without pain for the first time in a very long time. This case is about as good as it gets for a podiatrist!"

The type of treatment results that this experienced podiatrist achieved is not all that unusual for the podiatrist that understands the biomechanics regarding how to properly treat children with flatfoot deformity. No matter how many research studies tell me that "foot orthoses are not indicated in the treatment of pediatric flatfoot deformity", I will continue offering this valuable service to these patients and their parents simply due to the hundreds of positive life-altering experiences that I have seen over the past 22+ years in using properly constructed prescription foot orthoses to treat pediatric flatfoot deformity.
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 24th May 2011, 05:34 PM
2whiskers1 2whiskers1 is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15
Join Date: Apr 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

I recently attended a workshop run by Dr Angela Evans on paediatrics. It was very insightful and we were brought up to date with current research for flatfeet, intoeing, growing pains etc. In particular we learnt the importance of the pFFP (paediatric flat foot proforma) assessment tool and when to intervene with treatment for symptomatic flexible flat feet.

I am still unsure however, as to what specific design features a paediatric orthoses should have when prescribing for a pronated foot. Whether soft Vs rigid, material, length of the device etc. Is it just a case of seeing what works and making adjustments ?

I would be most grateful for some feedback.
Regards.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 24th May 2011, 06:19 PM
RobinP's Avatar
RobinP RobinP is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Isle of Man UK
Posts: 1,331
Join Date: Dec 2009
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 156
Thanked 263 Times in 200 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2whiskers1 View Post
I recently attended a workshop run by Dr Angela Evans on paediatrics. It was very insightful and we were brought up to date with current research for flatfeet, intoeing, growing pains etc. In particular we learnt the importance of the pFFP (paediatric flat foot proforma) assessment tool and when to intervene with treatment for symptomatic flexible flat feet.

I am still unsure however, as to what specific design features a paediatric orthoses should have when prescribing for a pronated foot. Whether soft Vs rigid, material, length of the device etc. Is it just a case of seeing what works and making adjustments ?

I would be most grateful for some feedback.
Regards.
Define the prescription variable that is required e.g. reduce residual pronation moments at the tib post, reduce rate at which end range pronation takes plance and design a device accordingly. Shape of device and friction at the interphase will play a major role in determining the design variables such as material choice etc. Of course patient compliance with the devices will also influence design.

Not sure how much help this is. Personally, I don't think along the lines of best device or prescription for kids feet any more. As with most things in this business, it all depends......

Robin
__________________
I see you girls checkin' out my trunks
I see you girls checkin' out the front of my trunks
I see you girls lookin' at my junk, then checkin' out my rump, then back to my sugarlumps
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 25th May 2011, 02:29 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: No evidence for foot orthoses in children

Quote:
it all depends......
What he said.

Dr. Evans work is insightful and interesting. However like all pathways of care it has to reduce rather complex human situations into tick boxes and criteria. People don't work that way.

I do paediatrics almost exclusively. Sometimes I see patients who are structurally or functionally unremarkable, but still have pathology. Sometimes I see people who are conventionally "flat footed" but appear to have good function. Lifestyle, footwear, compliance, other clinical elements (like proximal muscle function/tension or dyspraxia) are significant also.

People simply don't fit into neat boxes. The prescription you use must depend on the person in front of you, in all their complexity.

It should not just be a case of "see what works and adjust" (although there may be elements of that). You should be using your knowledge and experience to guide you before hand, to influence your prescription. That is the TRUE nature of custom orthoses. Not to mould every foot the same way and to make every insole the same way with the same material.

For EG, if you have two clinically identical patients, one a teenage girl who in spite your best efforts persists in wearing ballet pumps and the other who wears sturdy shoes. Given that the prescription is a composite of the footwear and the orthotic, the footwear alters the load deformation characteristics in many devices, would you use the same? I'd not.

Your question, therefore,
Quote:
what specific design features a paediatric orthoses should have when prescribing for a pronated foot.
Is impossible to answer, not least because "a pronated foot" is a meaningless definition, but also because the nature of the foot is only one very small part of the matrix of variables which constitutes a prescription.
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Translate This Page

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Success Rates of Orthotic Therapy TedJed Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 13 11th August 2009 12:14 PM
Effectiveness of Foot Orthoses to Treat Plantar Fasciitis Hylton Menz Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 72 2nd November 2007 02:18 PM
Functional forefoot extensions and accommodative orthoses Admin Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 17 4th October 2006 10:13 PM
Precision Intricast Newsletters markleigh General Issues and Discussion Forum 22 17th August 2006 10:44 PM
Foot orthoses in rheumatoid arthritis NewsBot General Issues and Discussion Forum 2 29th June 2006 01:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

Finding your way around:

Browse the forums.

Search the site.

Browse the tags.

Search the tags.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:17 AM.