Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1757-1146-6-19) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All authors were involved in the preparation of the study procedures. CJM collected the plantar pressure data and CJM and DRB were involved in data analysis. All authors were responsible for the preparation of the manuscript. The material within has not been and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The effectiveness of foot orthoses has been evaluated in many clinical trials with sham foot orthoses used as the control intervention in at least 10 clinical trials. However, the mechanical effects and credibility of sham orthoses has been rarely quantified. This study aimed to: (i) compare the effects on plantar pressures of three sham foot orthoses to a customised foot orthosis, and (ii) establish the perceived credibility and the expected benefit of each orthotic condition.
Thirty adults aged between 18 and 51 participated in this study. At 0 and 4 weeks, plantar pressure data were collected for the heel, midfoot and forefoot using the pedar®-X in-shoe system for the following five randomly assigned conditions: (i) shoe alone, (ii) customised foot orthosis, (iii) contoured polyethylene sham foot orthosis, (iv) contoured EVA sham foot orthosis, and (v) flat EVA sham foot orthosis. At the initial data collection session, each participant completed a Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) to determine the credibility and expected benefit of each orthotic condition.
Compared to the shoe alone at week 0, the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis was the only condition to not significantly effect peak pressure at any region of the foot. In contrast, the contoured EVA sham orthosis, the flat EVA sham orthosis and the customised orthosis significantly reduced peak pressure at the heel. At the medial midfoot, all sham orthoses provided the same effect as the shoe alone, which corresponded to effects that were significantly different to the customised orthosis. There were no differences in peak pressure between conditions at the other mask regions, the lateral midfoot and forefoot. When the conditions were compared at week 4, the differences between the conditions were generally similar to the findings observed at week 0. With respect to credibility and expected benefit, all orthotic conditions were considered the same with the exception of the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis, which was perceived as being less credible and less likely to provide benefits.
The findings of this study indicate that all of the sham orthoses tested provided the same effect on plantar pressures at the midfoot and forefoot as a shoe alone. However, the contoured EVA sham orthosis and the flat EVA sham orthosis significantly reduced peak pressure under the heel, which was similar to the customised orthosis. In contrast, the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis had no significant effect on plantar pressure and was comparable to the shoe alone at all regions of the foot. Hence, lower plantar pressures were found under the heel with some sham orthoses, but not with others. Importantly, participants perceived the polyethylene sham orthosis – the sham that had no effect on plantar pressure – to be the least credible orthosis and the least likely to provide benefits. This may be critical for the design of future clinical trials as it may introduce confounding effects that produce inaccurate results. These findings provide some evidence for the mechanical effects, treatment credibility and expected benefit of sham foot orthoses, which should be considered when they are used as a control intervention in a clinical trial.
Additional file 1: Figure S1: Example of deformation testing of a foot orthosis (in the figure below the contoured polyethylene sham foot orthosis is being tested). Figure S2. Force required for maximum deformation of the midpoint of the medial aspect of the foot orthosis. (DOCX 484 KB)13047_2012_501_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Authors’ original file for figure 113047_2012_501_MOESM2_ESM.png
Collins N, Bisset L, McPoil T, Vicenzino B: Foot orthoses in lower limb overuse conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 2007, 3 (28): 396-412. CrossRef
Hawke F, Burns J, Radford JA, du Toit V: Custom-made foot orthoses for the treatment of foot pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008, CD006801-10.1002/14651858.CD006801.pub2. Issue 3. Art. No.:
Landorf KB, Keenan AM: Do foot orthoses prevent injury?. Evidence-based sports medicine. Edited by: MacAuley D, Best TM. 2007, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 73-92. 2 CrossRef
Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE, Moore JW, Lertratanakul Y, Koch AE, Skosey JL, Froelich C, Joyce-Clark N: Can foot orthoses prevent hallux valgus deformity in rheumatoid arthritis? A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Rheumatol. 1995, 1 (6): 313-321. 10.1097/00124743-199512000-00001. CrossRefPubMed
Finestone A, Giladi M, Elad H, Salmon A, Mendelson S, Eldad A, Milgrom C: Prevention of stress fractures using custom biomechanical shoe orthoses. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1999, 360: 182-190. CrossRef
Munteanu SE, Landorf KB, Menz HB, Cook JL, Pizzari T, Scott LA: Efficacy of customised foot orthoses in the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy: study protocol for a randomised trial. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009, 2 (27): 1-13.
Herbert R, Jamtvedt G, Mead J, Hagen KB: Practical evidence-based physiotherapy. 2005, United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann
Peat JK, Barton B: Medical statistics: a guide to data analysis and critical appraisal. 2005, Carlton, Australia: Blackwell Publishing/BMJ Books CrossRef
Redmond A, Landorf K, Keenan A-M: Contoured, prefabricated foot orthoses demonstrate comparable mechanical properties to contoured, customised foot orthoses: a plantar pressure study. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009, 2 (20): 1-10.
Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008, 1 (6): 1-9.
Murley GS, Menz HB, Landorf KB: A protocol for classifying normal- and flat-arched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009, 2 (22): 1-13.
Murphy DF, Beynnon BD, Michelson JD, Vacek PM: Efficacy of plantar loading parameters during gait in terms of reliability, variability, effect of gender and relationship between contact area and plantar pressure. Foot Ankle Int. 2005, 26 (2): 171-179. PubMed
Burnfield JM, Few CD, Mohamed OS, Perry J: The influence of walking speed and footwear on plantar pressures in older adults. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2004, 19 (1): 78-84. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.09.007. CrossRef
Kaptchuk T, Stason W, Davis R, Legedza A, Schnyer R, Kerr C, Stone D, Nam B, Kirsch I, Goldman R: Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments. Br Med J. 2006, 332: 391-10.1136/bmj.38726.603310.55. CrossRef
Pfeffer G, Bacchetti P, Deland J, Lewis A, Anderson R, Davis W, Alvarez R, Brodsky J, Cooper P, Frey C, Herhck R, Myerson M, Sammarco J, Janecki C, Ross S, Bowman M, Smith R: Comparison of custom and prefabricated orthoses in the initial treatment of proximal plantar fasciitis. Foot Ankle Int. 1999, 20 (4): 214-221. 10.1177/107110079902000402. CrossRefPubMed
Jacobson NS, Baucom DH: Design and assessment of nonspecific control groups in behavior modification research. Behav Ther. 1977, 8 (4): 709-719. 10.1016/S0005-7894(77)80203-7. CrossRef
Torgerson DJ, Torgerson CJ: Designing randomised trials in health education and the social sciences: an introduction. 2008, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan CrossRef
Orlin MN, McPoil TG: Plantar pressure assessment. Phys Ther. 2000, 80 (4): 399-409. PubMed
Urry SR: Plantar pressure-measurement sensors. Meas Sci Technol. 1999, 10: 16-32. 10.1088/0957-0233/10/1/017. CrossRef
Boyd LA, Bontrager EL, Mulroy SJ, Perry J: The reliability and validity of the novel pedar system of in-shoe pressure measurement during free ambulation. Gait Posture. 1997, 5 (2): 165-165. CrossRef
Urry SR, Wearing SC: The accuracy of footprint contact area measurements: relevance to the design and performance of pressure platforms. Foot. 2001, 11: 151-157. 10.1054/foot.2001.0684. CrossRef
Urry SR, Wearing SC: Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different. Foot. 2005, 15: 68-73. 10.1016/j.foot.2005.02.001. CrossRef
- The effect of customised and sham foot orthoses on plantar pressures
Chris J McCormick
Daniel R Bonanno
Karl B Landorf
- BioMed Central