A Notni1, R A Fuhrmann. 1. Klinik für Orthopädie der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differences in weight bearing using forefoot relief ortheses available on the German market. METHODS: Six different forefoot relief shoes were tested. All ten probands wearing the same shoe-size, had a physiological foot anatomy and a normal gait. Contact time, contact area, maximum pressure and the pressure-time integral were assessed in six different areas of the sole. We used the dynamic device Fast SCAN by MEGASCAN placing the sensor inside the orthesis. RESULTS: A reduction of the pressure underneath the forefoot was seen with all sample shoes. In particular 3 types showed favourable parameters. The Metasan walking aid keeping the forefoot hanging free, reduced the pressure to almost zero compared to barefoot walking. The Forefoot relief orthesis with protective shield--also not supporting the forefoot--permitted a reduction down to 20% of the barefoot pressure. The Forefoot relief orthesis Dr. L. S. Barouk is reducing the pressure to 20% as well, allows a safer gait by lifting the front parts of the foot. Concerning the gait line remarkable differences between the shoe-types are seen. In all samples the front tipping edge of the shoe was free of peak loading. CONCLUSIONS: The shoes tested do reduce the pressure under the toes and under the metatarsals. They are not suitable for the postoperative care of proximal metatarsal or tarsometatarsal osteotomies.
PURPOSE: Differences in weight bearing using forefoot relief ortheses available on the German market. METHODS: Six different forefoot relief shoes were tested. All ten probands wearing the same shoe-size, had a physiological foot anatomy and a normal gait. Contact time, contact area, maximum pressure and the pressure-time integral were assessed in six different areas of the sole. We used the dynamic device Fast SCAN by MEGASCAN placing the sensor inside the orthesis. RESULTS: A reduction of the pressure underneath the forefoot was seen with all sample shoes. In particular 3 types showed favourable parameters. The Metasan walking aid keeping the forefoot hanging free, reduced the pressure to almost zero compared to barefoot walking. The Forefoot relief orthesis with protective shield--also not supporting the forefoot--permitted a reduction down to 20% of the barefoot pressure. The Forefoot relief orthesis Dr. L. S. Barouk is reducing the pressure to 20% as well, allows a safer gait by lifting the front parts of the foot. Concerning the gait line remarkable differences between the shoe-types are seen. In all samples the front tipping edge of the shoe was free of peak loading. CONCLUSIONS: The shoes tested do reduce the pressure under the toes and under the metatarsals. They are not suitable for the postoperative care of proximal metatarsal or tarsometatarsal osteotomies.