Literature DB >> 18757124

A comparison of semi-custom and custom foot orthotic devices in high- and low-arched individuals during walking.

Rebecca Avrin Zifchock1, Irene Davis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Orthotic devices can be a successful treatment for lower extremity injuries. However, the high cost of custom devices prevents some patients from purchasing them. Some orthotic companies have begun to offer a less expensive, semi-custom alternative. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the semi-custom devices can provide similar rearfoot control and comfort as custom devices in individuals with excessively high- and low-arches.
METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects walked through the motion analysis lab under three conditions: no-orthotic, custom orthotics, and semi-custom orthotics. Rearfoot kinematics and comfort were collected in each device.
FINDINGS: Both devices were effective at reducing eversion velocity and excursion. As compared to the no-orthotic condition, the custom device significantly decreased eversion velocity (P=0.03), while the semi-custom device showed a trend toward decreased eversion velocity (P=0.09). Eversion excursion was significantly reduced in both orthotic conditions (P<0.01). In terms of comfort, high-arched individuals tended to be more comfortable in the semi-custom device in the heel and arch regions. However, the differences in comfort between the devices were generally small (<7%).
INTERPRETATION: Overall, with respect to a comfort and ability to control rearfoot motion, the semi-custom orthotic device is a feasible alternative to the custom orthotic device for high- and low-arched individuals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18757124     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.07.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  6 in total

1.  Custom-molded foot-orthosis intervention and multisegment medial foot kinematics during walking.

Authors:  Stephen C Cobb; Laurie L Tis; Jeffrey T Johnson; Yong Tai Wang; Mark D Geil
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Embracing additive manufacture: implications for foot and ankle orthosis design.

Authors:  Scott Telfer; Jari Pallari; Javier Munguia; Kenny Dalgarno; Martin McGeough; Jim Woodburn
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  Changes in multi-segment foot biomechanics with a heat-mouldable semi-custom foot orthotic device.

Authors:  Reed Ferber; Brittany Benson
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Passive hallux adduction decreases lateral plantar artery blood flow: a preliminary study of the potential influence of narrow toe box shoes.

Authors:  Julia L Jacobs; Sarah T Ridge; Dustin A Bruening; K Annie Brewerton; Jayson R Gifford; Daniel M Hoopes; A Wayne Johnson
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 5.  Footwear comfort: a systematic search and narrative synthesis of the literature.

Authors:  Hylton B Menz; Daniel R Bonanno
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 2.303

6.  Foot orthoses for adults with flexible pes planus: a systematic review.

Authors:  Helen A Banwell; Shylie Mackintosh; Dominic Thewlis
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 2.303

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.