Effects of Hinged versus Floor-Reaction Ankle-Foot Orthoses on Standing Stability and Sit-to-Stand Performance in Children with Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy

Hinged ankle-foot orthoses (HAFOs) and floor reaction ankle-foot orthoses (FRAFOs) are frequently prescribed to improve gait performance in children with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy (CP). No study has investigated the effects of FRAFO on sit-to-stand (STS) performance nor scrutinized differences between the application of HAFOs and FRAFOs on postural control. This study compared the effects of HAFOs and FRAFOs on standing stability and STS performance in children with spastic diplegic CP. Nine children with spastic diplegic CP participated in this crossover repeated-measures design research. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during static standing and STS performance using 3-D motion analysis and force plates. Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare the differences in standing stability and STS performance between wearing HAFOs and FRAFOs. The results showed that during static standing, all center of pressure (COP) parameters (maximal anteroposterior/mediolateral displacement, maximal velocity, and sway area) were not significantly different between FRAFOs and HAFOs. During STS, the floor reaction force in the vertical direction was significantly higher with FRAFOs than with HAFOs (p = 0.018). There were no significant differences in the range of motion in the trunk, knee, and ankle, the maximal velocity of COP forward displacement, completion time, and the force of hip, knee, and ankle joints between the two orthoses. The results suggest both FRAFOs and HAFOs have a similar effect on standing stability, while FRAFOs may benefit STS performance more compared to HAFOs.

Predicting Forefoot-Orthosis Interactions in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Computational Modelling

Foot orthoses are prescribed to reduce forefoot plantar pressures and pain in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Computational modelling can assess how the orthoses affect internal tissue stresses, but previous studies have focused on a single healthy individual. This study aimed to ascertain whether simplified forefoot models would produce differing biomechanical predictions at the orthotic interface between people with rheumatoid arthritis of varying severity, and in comparison to a healthy control. The forefoot models were developed from magnetic resonance data of 13 participants with rheumatoid arthritis and one healthy individual. Measurements of bony morphology and soft tissue thickness were taken to assess deformity. These were compared to model predictions (99th% shear strain and plantar pressure, max. pressure gradient, volume of soft tissue over 10% shear strain), alongside clinical data including body mass index and Leeds Foot Impact Scale–Impairment/Footwear score (LFIS-IF). The predicted pressure and shear strain for the healthy participant fell at the lower end of the rheumatoid models’ range. Medial first metatarsal head curvature moderately correlated to all model predicted outcomes (0.529 < r < 0.574, 0.040 < p < 0.063). BMI strongly correlated to all model predictions except pressure gradients (0.600 < r < 0.652, p < 0.05). There were no apparent relationships between model predictions and instances of bursae, erosion and synovial hypertrophy or LFIS-IF score. The forefoot models produced differing biomechanical predictions between a healthy individual and participants with rheumatoid arthritis, and between individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Models capable of predicting subject specific biomechanical orthotic interactions could be used in the future to inform more personalised devices to protect skin and soft tissue health. While the model results did not clearly correlate with all clinical measures, there was a wide range in model predictions and morphological measures across the participants. Thus, the need for assessment of foot orthoses across a population, rather than for one individual, is clear.

Use and usability of custom-made knee-ankle-foot orthoses in polio survivors with knee instability: A cross-sectional survey

Objective: To investigate the use of custom-made knee-ankle-foot-orthoses in daily life and differences in usability factors of knee-ankle-foot-orthoses between users and discontinued users. Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Subjects: A total of 163 polio survivors provided with a knee-ankle-foot-orthosis at an outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Methods: Use and usability of knee-ankle-foot-orthoses in daily life were assessed with a postal questionnaire. Usability factors were formulated using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9241-11 standard. Results: A total of 106 respondents (65%) returned the questionnaire. Of these, 98 were eligible for analysis. Seventy-four respondents (76%) reported using their knee-ankle-foot-orthosis. Compared with discontinued users (24%), users experienced more limitations when walking without an orthosis (p = 0.001), were more often experienced with wearing a previous orthosis (p < 0.001) and were more often prescribed with a locked rather than a stance-control knee-ankle-foot-orthosis (p = 0.015). Furthermore, users reported better effectiveness of their knee-ankle-foot-orthosis (p < 0.001), more satisfaction with goals of use and knee-ankle-foot-orthosis-related aspects (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The majority of polio survivors used their custom-made knee-ankle-foot-orthoses in daily life. Factors related to continued use, such as walking ability without orthosis, expectations of the orthosis, previous orthosis experience and type of knee-ankle-foot-orthosis provided, should be considered and discussed when prescribing a knee-ankle-foot-orthosis in polio survivors.

The effects of ankle-foot orthoses with plantar flexion stop and plantar flexion resistance using rocker-sole shoes on stroke gait: A randomized-controlled trial

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the effect of two ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs), AFO with plantar flexion stop (AFO-PlfS), and AFO with plantar flexion resistance (AFO-PlfR), while wearing standard shoes and rocker-sole shoes. Patients and methods: Between November 2017 and July 2018, in this randomized-controlled study, a total of 20 stroke patients (8 males, 12 females; mean age: 48.1 years; range, 33 to 65 years) in chronic phase were randomized to AFO groups (AFO-PlfS group, n=10 and AFO-PlfR group, n=10). Each group received the allocated AFO along with two kinds of shoes (standard shoe and rocker shoe) for a two-week adaptation. Two effects were separately evaluated: The orthotic effect and rocker shoe effect were defined as the evaluation of using an AFO wearing standard shoe compared to only standard shoe, and evaluation of using an AFO wearing rocker shoe compared to an AFO wearing standard shoe, respectively. The gait of each group was measured by three-dimensional motion analysis. Results: A significant orthotic effect was found in both AFO groups in spatiotemporal parameters and maximum ankle dorsiflexion in the single-support phase. Additionally, the AFO-PlfR group showed a significant improvement in the parameters related to the first rocker of gait, but not for AFO-PlfS group concerning the orthotic effect. The rocker shoe effect was found in significant reduction of peak ankle plantar flexor moment and power ankle generation during preswing for both AFO groups. Conclusion: According to the orthotic effect, an AFO-PlfR can create better function in the improvement of parameters related to the first rocker. Although a rocker shoe can facilitate rollover for weight progression in the third rocker of gait, it cannot make a strong push-off function in stroke survivors.

HAPPi Kneecaps! A double-blind, randomised, parallel group superiority trial investigating the effects of sHoe inserts for adolescents with patellofemoral PaIn: phase II feasibility study

Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) affects one-third of adolescents and can persist into adulthood, negatively impacting health and quality of life. Foot orthoses are a recommended treatment for adults with PFP, but have not been evaluated in adolescents. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating effects of contoured, prefabricated foot orthoses on knee pain severity and patient-perceived global change, compared to flat insoles. The secondary objective was to describe outcomes on a range of patient-reported outcome measures. Methods We recruited adolescents aged 12–18 years with PFP of ≥2 months duration into a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group feasibility trial. Participants were randomised to receive prefabricated contoured foot orthoses or flat shoe insoles, and followed for 3 months. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Primary outcomes were feasibility of a full-scale RCT (number of eligible/enrolled volunteers; recruitment rate; adherence with the intervention and logbook completion; adverse effects; success of blinding; drop-out rate), and credibility and expectancy of interventions. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported measures of pain, symptoms, function, quality of life, global rating of change, patient acceptable symptom state, and use of co-interventions. Results 36 out of 279 (12.9%) volunteers (27 female, mean (SD) age 15 (2) years, body mass 60 (13) kg) were eligible and enrolled, at a recruitment rate of 1.2 participants/week. 17 participants were randomised to receive foot orthoses, and 19 to flat insoles. 15 participants returned logbooks; 7/15 (47%) adhered to the intervention. No serious adverse events were reported. 28% (10/36, 4 pandemic-related) of participants dropped out before 3 months. Blinding was successful. Both groups found the inserts to be credible. Conclusions Based on a priori criteria for feasibility, findings suggest that a full-scale RCT comparing contoured foot orthoses to flat insoles in adolescents with PFP would not be feasible using the current protocol. Prior to conducting a full-scale RCT, feasibility issues should be addressed, with protocol modifications to facilitate participant retention, logbook completion and shoe insert wear. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12619000957190. Date registered: 8/07/2019.