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.
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
First up this AM was Clifton Bradley on how he uses the technology in his practice. There was some interesting stuff on LLD's that I will email him about that to get more info (watch this space)
It just got interesting as Simon decided to butt heads with him, but Clifton had to leave as his wife was in labor.
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
First up this AM was Clifton Bradley on how he uses the technology in his practice. There was some interesting stuff on LLD's that I will email him about that to get more info (watch this space)
It just got interesting as Simon decided to butt heads with him, but Clifton had to leave as his wife was in labor.
For the record I disagreed with the methodology employed by Clifton. That is, he mills the shells of the orthoses before he completes is assessment of the patient. So anything he looks at clinically after this point in the consultation adds nothing to the design of the foot orthoses interface geometry etc.?
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
For the record I disagreed with the methodology employed by Clifton. That is, he mills the shells of the orthoses before he completes is assessment of the patient. So anything he looks at clinically after this point in the consultation adds nothing to the design of the foot orthodox interface geometry etc.?
...I wondered what you were doing taping away on your phone! What did you thing of CraigT's presentation?
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
Craig is up talking about cost benefit of scan versus plaster. Jim woodburn has just asked if there is a clinical benefit? Now talking about distortion of measurements.
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
Larry Huppin presently his overview of criteria for an optical scanner (not too dissimilar to his article in LER). The title was an EBM Approach to Digital Scanners. Jim Woodburn asked a question about Larry's use of the words "EBM" - it was partially semantics.
I guess its all about how you define EBM, as evidence based medicine is generally defined as outcome studies and that is not what Larry used the term as. What Larry presented was good, but was really consistent with the research evidence, and probably should not have been called "An EBM approach...." until such as time that the clinical outcomes studies show that if you do what is consistent with the evidence you get better outcomes. Just because an approach is consistent with the evidence or the criteria used are based on the evidence, does not make it evidence based practice.
Apart from that the criteria Larry came up with to evaluate scanners was good.
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
The first session Friday AM was the Cryogenic machining of soft material orthotics. Cool. It was technical and complicated, but basically they freeze the material cryogenically, them mill. The Uni are doing a demo in their lab this PM, so will look forward to it!
Some of the microscopic analysis showed deformation of milled EVA that did not happen with cyrogenically frozen EVA. Looks to be a lot of possible advantages of doing it this way.
The aim is to make a desktop EVA milling machine for foot orthotics ... apparently its being worked on.
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
Phil Wells is now talking about his cad/cam experiences.
Some snippets:
- measure inside of shoe dimensions with calipers to make sure lab makes orthotics within those dimensions
- versatility of what you can do with cad/cam
-weakness - high dependency on skilled staff; skills needed for CAM machining; need for material specific machines
- benefits speed; repeatability; material uninformity; material choice; digital image capture
Re: Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian G
In years to come I'll tell my kids that this was my trip to Bath with Jason Statham, Dr Phil and some bloke who dressed like Russell Brand...
I can't help it if I'm cool. And anyway, I reckon you and Tanner are MZ twins that were separated at birth. You even dress the same (or did your shared mother dress you both?). In fact, looking at that photo you may even be conjoined twins
Live Updates from the Foot Orthotic Technology Conference, Bath University
Linear Mode
