Effect of knee unloading shoes on regional plantar forces in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis - an exploratory study

A Method-Comparison Study Highlighting the Disparity between Osseous- and Skin-Based Measures of Foot Mobility

PURPOSE

This study examined the validity of standard clinical measures of arch height mobility, midfoot width mobility (MWM), and foot mobility magnitude (FMM) relative to skin-based and osseous measures derived from radiographs.

METHODS

Skin-based clinical indices of foot mobility were calculated from standard, caliper-based measures of foot length, midfoot width, and dorsal arch height of the left limb of 20 healthy participants (8-71 yr) during non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing. Skin-based radiographic and osseous indices were derived from concurrent anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. Agreement between skin-based clinical and skin-based radiographic measures of foot mobility with those of osseous measures was investigated using the Bland and Altman approach.

RESULTS

Foot mobility indices derived from clinical measures were significantly higher (20%-50%) than skin-based radiographic measures ( P < 0.01), which were, in turn, significantly higher (200%-250%) than osseous measures ( P < 0.01). Clinical measures demonstrated significant levels of proportional bias compared with radiographic measures of foot mobility ( P < 0.01). The contribution of osseous movement to skin-based clinical measures of mobility was highly variable between individuals, ranging between 19% and 81% for arch height mobility, between 4% and 87% for MWM, and between 14% and 75% for FMM. The limits of tolerance for clinical measures of foot mobility ranged from ±3.2 mm for MWM to ±6.6 mm for measures of FMM. The limits of tolerance for skin-based clinical and skin-based radiographic measures were generally larger than osseous movement with weight-bearing.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin-based measures of foot mobility, whether clinical or radiographic methods, are not interchangeable and are poor indicators of osseous mobility. Although further research regarding the utility of osseous measures is warranted, these findings strongly caution against the use of skin-based clinical measures of foot mobility in clinical and research settings.

An exploration of changes in plantar pressure distributions during walking with standalone and supported lateral wedge insole designs

Background

Lateral wedge insoles (LWI), standalone or with medial arch support (supported-LWI), have been thoroughly investigated for their effects on modifying gait biomechanics for people with knee osteoarthritis. However, plantar pressure distribution between these insole types has not been investigated and could provide insight towards insole prescription with concomitant foot symptoms taken into consideration.

Methods

In a sample of healthy individuals (n = 40), in-shoe plantar pressure was measured during walking with LWI, with or without medial arch support (variable- and uniform-stiffness designs), and a flat control insole condition. Pressure data from the plantar surface of the foot were divided into seven regions: medial/lateral rearfoot, midfoot, medial/central/lateral forefoot, hallux. Plantar pressure outcomes assessed were the medial-lateral pressure index (MLPI) for the whole foot, and the peak pressure, pressure-time integral (PTI), and contact area in each plantar region. Comfort in each insole condition was rated as a change relative to the flat control insole condition. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were calculated to compare the plantar pressure outcomes between insole conditions.

Results

Regionally, medial rearfoot and forefoot pressure were reduced by all wedged insoles, with the variable-stiffness supported-wedge showing greater reductions than the standalone wedge. Lateral rearfoot and forefoot pressure were reduced by both supported-LWI, but unchanged by the standalone wedge. In the midfoot, the standalone wedge maintained pressure but reduced regional contact area, while both supported-LWI increased midfoot pressure and contact area. All LWI increased the MLPI, indicating a lateral shift in plantar pressure distribution throughout the weightbearing phase of gait. Comfort ratings were not significantly different between insole conditions.

Conclusions

Regional differences in plantar pressure may help determine an appropriate lateral wedge insole variation to avoid exacerbation of concomitant foot symptoms by minimizing pressure in symptomatic regions. Lateral shifts in plantar pressure distribution were observed in all laterally wedged conditions, including one supported-LWI that was previously shown to be biomechanically ineffective for modifying knee joint load distribution. Thus, shifts in foot centre of pressure may not be a primary mechanism by which LWI can modify knee joint load distribution for people with knee osteoarthritis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-021-00493-5.

Foot characteristics and mechanics in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Foot characteristics and mechanics are hypothesized to affect aetiology of several lower extremity musculoskeletal conditions, including knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the foot characteristics and mechanics of individuals with KOA.

Methods

Five databases were searched to identify relevant studies on foot characteristics and mechanics in people with KOA. Meta-analyses were performed where common measures were found across included studies. Included studies were evaluated for data reporting quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist.

Results

Thirty-nine studies were included in this systematic review. Two studies reported participants with KOA had statistically significantly (P < 0.05) more pronated foot postures than those without. Meta-analyses for foot progression angle (FPA) and peak rearfoot eversion angle found no difference between those with and without KOA (FPA mean difference:-1.50 [95% confidence interval − 4.20-1.21]; peak rearfoot eversion mean difference: 0.71 [1.55–2.97]).

Conclusion

A more pronated foot posture was noticed in those with KOA. However, it was not possible to establish a relationship between other foot characteristics or mechanics in people with KOA due to heterogeneity between the included study and limited number of studies with similar measurements. There is need for identifying common measurement techniques and reporting metrics when studying the foot in those with KOA.

Smart Socks and In-Shoe Systems: State-of-the-Art for Two Popular Technologies for Foot Motion Analysis, Sports, and Medical Applications

The present paper reviews, for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, the most recent advances in research concerning two popular devices used for foot motion analysis and health monitoring: smart socks and in-shoe systems. The first one is representative of textile-based systems, whereas the second one is one of the most used pressure sensitive insole (PSI) systems that is used as an alternative to smart socks. The proposed methods are reviewed for smart sock use in special medical applications, for gait and foot pressure analysis. The Pedar system is also shown, together with studies of validation and repeatability for Pedar and other in-shoe systems. Then, the applications of Pedar are presented, mainly in medicine and sports. Our purpose was to offer the researchers in this field a useful means to overview and select relevant information. Moreover, our review can be a starting point for new, relevant research towards improving the design and functionality of the systems, as well as extending the research towards other areas of applications using sensors in smart textiles and in-shoe systems.

Footwear for osteoarthritis of the lateral knee: protocol for the FOLK randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Structural features of lateral tibiofemoral (TF) joint osteoarthritis (OA) occur in up to half of all people with knee OA, and co-existing lateral TF OA is associated with worse knee pain in people with mixed compartmental knee OA. Clinical guidelines for management of knee OA advocate advice about appropriate footwear, yet there is no research evaluating which types of footwear are best for managing pain associated with lateral TF OA. Biomechanical evidence suggests that "motion-control" footwear, which possess midsoles that are stiffer medially compared to laterally, may shift load away from the lateral compartment of the knee and thus may reduce knee pain associated with lateral TF OA. The primary aim of this study is to compare the effects of motion-control shoes to neutral shoes on knee pain in people with predominantly lateral TF OA.

METHODS

This will be an assessor- and participant-blinded, two-arm, comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Melbourne, Australia. We will recruit a minimum of 92 people with painful lateral TF OA from the community. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive either motion-control shoes or neutral shoes and will be instructed to wear their allocated shoes for a minimum of 6 h per day for 6 months. The primary outcome is change in self-reported knee pain on walking, measured using a numerical rating scale, assessed at baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include other measures of knee pain, physical function, quality of life, participant-perceived change in pain and function, and physical activity levels.

DISCUSSION

This study will compare the efficacy of motion-control shoes to neutral shoes for people with painful lateral TF OA. Findings will be the first to provide evidence of the effects of footwear on knee pain in this important subgroup of people with knee OA and allow clinicians to provide accurate advice about the most appropriate footwear for managing pain associated with lateral TF OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been prospectively registered by the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 15/11/2018 (reference: ACTRN12618001864213).