If It Doesn't Work, Why Do We Still Do It? The Continuing Use of Subtalar Joint Neutral Theory in the Face of Overpowering Critical Research

Toward improved understanding of foot shape, foot posture, and foot biomechanics during running: A narrative review

The current narrative review has explored known associations between foot shape, foot posture, and foot conditions during running. The artificial intelligence was found to be a useful metric of foot posture but was less useful in developing and obese individuals. Care should be taken when using the foot posture index to associate pronation with injury risk, and the Achilles tendon and longitudinal arch angles are required to elucidate the risk. The statistical shape modeling (SSM) may derive learnt information from population-based inference and fill in missing data from personalized information. Bone shapes and tissue morphology have been associated with pathology, gender, age, and height and may develop rapid population-specific foot classifiers. Based on this review, future studies are suggested for 1) tracking the internal multi-segmental foot motion and mapping the biplanar 2D motion to 3D shape motion using the SSM; 2) implementing multivariate machine learning or convolutional neural network to address nonlinear correlations in foot mechanics with shape or posture; 3) standardizing wearable data for rapid prediction of instant mechanics, load accumulation, injury risks and adaptation in foot tissue and bones, and correlation with shapes; 4) analyzing dynamic shape and posture via marker-less and real-time techniques under real-life scenarios for precise evaluation of clinical foot conditions and performance-fit footwear development.

Biomechanical effects of foot orthoses with and without a lateral bar in individuals with cavus feet during comfortable and fast walking

Background/purpose

The biomechanical effects of foot orthoses (FOs) with and without a lateral bar compared to a control condition during walking at different speeds are still unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical effects of functional FOs with and without a lateral bar to a control condition during comfortable walking in individuals with cavus feet and determine if their effects change at a fast speed.

Methods

Fifteen individuals with cavus feet (age: 25.3 ± 5.8 yrs) walked under two experimental conditions (FOs with and without a lateral bar) and a control condition (shoes only) at comfortable (CW) and fast (FW) speeds. The outcome measures were ankle and knee angles and gluteus medius, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius lateralis, gastrocnemius medialis, peroneus longus and tibialis anterior electromyography (EMG) amplitudes during the stance phase of walking and were compared between the FOs and a control condition using one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping.

Results

During CW, both FOs decreased ankle dorsiflexion and increased knee extension angles compared to no FOs. FOs with a lateral bar also decreased peroneus longus EMG amplitudes. During FW, FOs with and without a lateral bar decreased ankle dorsiflexion angles compared to no FOs.

Conclusion

Both types of FOs had different effects on the biomechanics of the lower limb compared to a control condition. The decreased peroneus longus EMG amplitudes during CW in individuals with cavus feet could have important clinical implications in other populations, such as individuals with painful cavus feet. The orthoses only affected the ankle dorsiflexion angles at a fast speed and no EMG amplitude or knee kinematics effects were observed. Further studies assessing the ankle kinematics and kinetics effects of these orthoses are needed to improve our understanding of their mechanism of action and inform future efficacy trials.

Lower Extremity Biomechanical Examination of Athletes

A comprehensive lower extremity examination is a critical examination component for any type of injury in an athlete but should also be part of a preseason or preventive care program. Identification and treatment of biomechanical abnormalities and association with evidence-based risk factors for lower extremity disorders can be incorporated to potentially reduce risk or prevent acute and chronic injuries.

The Elephant in the Room: Too Much Medicine in Musculoskeletal Practice

While advances in assessment and management of musculoskeletal conditions have improved care for many people, there have been other, less beneficial developments in the provision of care for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions, one of which is the worrying tendency to provide too much medicine. Too much medicine occurs when the provision of either investigation or intervention (or both) is unjustifiably excessive. Another concern in musculoskeletal health care is medicalizing normality-when a normal human function or condition is labeled as abnormal. In this Viewpoint, the authors argue that medicalizing normality creates health concerns where none exist, while too much medicine involves provision of care where benefits do not outweigh harms, and wastes precious health care resources. The authors (1) list 2 common examples of too much medicine, and 2 examples of medicalizing normality, relevant to physical therapy practice; (2) outline the drivers of too much medicine and medicalizing normality; and (3) make suggestions for change. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(1):1-4. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0601.

Using the Biomechanical Examination to Guide Therapy

In trying to explain the myriad of foot deformities and symptoms that have slow onset and/or are considered to be overuse syndromes, clinicians have been trying to develop quantitative examinations to describe the cause of the patient's problems and to better individualize treatment modalities. This type of examination is called a biomechanical examination. This article discusses some of the more common portions of a biomechanical examination of the foot and lower extremity. It will also point out some ways that the information from a biomechanical examination can be applied in clinically treating patients.

Is Excellence in the Cards?

Thomas G. McPoil, PT, PhD, FAPTA, is Emeritus Professor of Physical Therapy at Regis University, Denver, Colorado, and Emeritus Regents' Professor of Physical Therapy at Northern Arizona University. He has served as an Adjunct Honorary Professor in the School of Physiotherapy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and currently serves as a consultant to the Physical Therapy Orthotics Clinic at Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado. Dr. McPoil is known nationally and internationally for his scholarly contributions that have systematically examined foot and ankle function from both scientific and clinical perspectives. Dr. McPoil is an author or coauthor of 130 publications in peer-reviewed journals, coeditor of 2 books, and coauthor of 6 book chapters. His work reaches beyond the profession of physical therapy, as he served on the editorial boards of Foot and Ankle International, the Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, and Research in Sports Medicine and is currently on the editorial boards of the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and The FOOT. Dr McPoil received his PhD in kinesiology with a specialization in biomechanics from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He holds an MS in physical education with a specialization in athletic training from Louisiana State University and a BA in physical education from the California State University, Sacramento. During his career, he has held faculty appointments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Northern Arizona University, and Regis University. Dr McPoil's clinical practice has focused on the management of chronic orthopedic foot and ankle disorders for the past 38 years. Dr McPoil is the founding president of the Foot and Ankle Special Interest Group of the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy. He has served as Vice President of the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy and as the Treasurer of the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. He has received numerous teaching awards, including APTA's Dorothy E. Baethke & Eleanor J. Carlin Award for Excellence in Academic Teaching and the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy's James A. Gould Excellence in Teaching Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Award. He is a recipient of a Fulbright Senior Scholar Award, the William J. Stickel Award for Research in Podiatric Medicine, the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy's Stanley Paris Distinguished Service Award and was elected a Catherine Worthingham Fellow of APTA in 2007.

June 2018 Letter to the Editor-in-Chief

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows: "The Root Method as Fiction: The Original References" with Authors' Response J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):514-515. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0202.

A protocol for a randomised controlled trial of prefabricated versus customised foot orthoses for people with rheumatoid arthritis: the FOCOS RA trial [Foot Orthoses - Customised v Off-the-Shelf in Rheumatoid Arthritis]

BACKGROUND

Foot pain is common in rheumatoid arthritis and appears to persist despite modern day medical management. Several clinical practice guidelines currently recommend the use of foot orthoses for the treatment of foot pain in people with rheumatoid arthritis. However, an evidence gap currently exists concerning the comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of prefabricated and customised foot orthoses in people with early rheumatoid arthritis. Early intervention with orthotics may offer the best opportunity for positive therapeutic outcomes. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of prefabricated versus customised orthoses for reducing foot pain over 12 months.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a multi-centre two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial comparing prefabricated versus customised orthoses in participants with early rheumatoid arthritis (< 2 years disease duration). A total of 160 (a minimum of 80 randomised to each arm) eligible participants will be recruited from United Kingdom National Health Service Rheumatology Outpatient Clinics. The primary outcome will be foot pain measured via the Foot Function Index pain subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include foot related impairments and disability via the Foot Impact Scale for rheumatoid arthritis, global functional status via the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire, foot disease activity via the Rheumatoid Arthritis Foot Disease Activity Index, and health-related quality of life at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Process outcomes will include recruitment/retention rates, data completion rates, intervention adherence rates, and participant intervention and trial participation satisfaction. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses will be undertaken.

DISCUSSION

Outcome measures collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months will be used to evaluate the comparative clinical- and cost- effectiveness of customised versus prefabricated orthoses for this treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis foot conditions. This trial will help to guide orthotic prescription recommendations for the management of foot pain for people with early rheumatoid arthritis in future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN13654421. Registered 09 February 2016.