BACKGROUND: Motion control and comfort are primary objectives in orthotic intervention. Semicustom orthotic devices have been presented as a more cost-effective solution than custom orthotic devices. However, no studies have compared their function or comfort to that of custom orthotic devices. METHODS: Nineteen uninjured runners were fitted for custom and semicustom orthotic devices. Subjects underwent an instrumented gait analysis of running and walking in no-orthotic, custom orthotic, and semicustom orthotic conditions. Subjects completed visual analog scales for the custom and semicustom orthotic conditions. One-way repeated measures analyses of variance were performed on the rearfoot variables of peak eversion, eversion excursion, eversion duration, and eversion velocity. Two-tailed, dependent t tests were used to compare comfort. RESULTS: Eversion excursion showed significant differences between the conditions: during running, it was reduced in the custom orthotic as compared to the no-orthotic condition; during walking, it was reduced in the semicustom orthotic as compared to both the custom and no-orthotic conditions. The custom orthotic devices were significantly more comfortable (P < .05) than the semicustom devices in the area of the edges only. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that, in uninjured individuals, there are few differences in rearfoot motion control and comfort between the custom and semicustom orthotic devices used in this study.
BACKGROUND: Motion control and comfort are primary objectives in orthotic intervention. Semicustom orthotic devices have been presented as a more cost-effective solution than custom orthotic devices. However, no studies have compared their function or comfort to that of custom orthotic devices. METHODS: Nineteen uninjured runners were fitted for custom and semicustom orthotic devices. Subjects underwent an instrumented gait analysis of running and walking in no-orthotic, custom orthotic, and semicustom orthotic conditions. Subjects completed visual analog scales for the custom and semicustom orthotic conditions. One-way repeated measures analyses of variance were performed on the rearfoot variables of peak eversion, eversion excursion, eversion duration, and eversion velocity. Two-tailed, dependent t tests were used to compare comfort. RESULTS: Eversion excursion showed significant differences between the conditions: during running, it was reduced in the custom orthotic as compared to the no-orthotic condition; during walking, it was reduced in the semicustom orthotic as compared to both the custom and no-orthotic conditions. The custom orthotic devices were significantly more comfortable (P < .05) than the semicustom devices in the area of the edges only. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that, in uninjured individuals, there are few differences in rearfoot motion control and comfort between the custom and semicustom orthotic devices used in this study.
Authors: Babette C van der Zwaard; Wim Jc Swagerman; Benedicte Vanwanseele; Kees J Gorter; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Petra Jm Elders Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Ruth Barn; Mhairi Brandon; Daniel Rafferty; Roger D Sturrock; Martijn Steultjens; Deborah E Turner; James Woodburn Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 7.580