BACKGROUND: Flexible flat foot is described as a reduction in the height of the medial longitudinal arch and may occur from abnormal foot pronation. A foot orthosis is thought to modify and control excessive pronation and improve arch height.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effect of three types of orthoses on foot mobility and the arch height index in subjects with flexible flat feet.
STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study.
METHOD: The dorsal arch height, midfoot width, foot mobility and arch height index were assessed in 20 participants with flexible flat feet (mean age = 23.2 ± 3 years) for three different foot orthosis conditions: soft, semi-rigid and rigid University of California Biomechanics Laboratory (UCBL).
RESULTS: Maximum midfoot width at 90% with arch mobility in the coronal plane was shown in the semi-rigid orthosis condition. The semi-rigid orthosis resulted in the highest mean foot mobility in 90% of weight bearing, and the rigid orthosis (UCBL) had the lowest mean foot mobility. The soft orthosis resulted in foot mobility between that of the rigid and the semi-rigid orthosis. UCBL orthosis showed the highest arch height index, and the semi-rigid orthosis showed the lowest mean arch height index.
CONCLUSION: Due to its rigid structure and long medial-lateral walls, the UCBL orthosis appears to limit foot mobility. Therefore, it is necessary to make an orthosis that facilitates foot mobility in the normal range of the foot arch. Future studies should address the dynamic mobility of the foot with using various types of foot orthoses.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although there are many studies focussed on flat foot and the use of foot orthoses, the mechanism of action is still unclear. This study explored foot mobility and the influence of foot orthoses and showed that a more rigid foot orthosis should be selected based on foot mobility.
KEYWORDS: Foot orthosis; arch height index; foot mobility magnitude
This report compares wrist supination and pronation and flexion and extension movements with the common body-powered prosthesis and a new biomechatronics prosthesis with regard to patient satisfaction and problems experienced with the prosthesis. Fifteen subjects with traumatic transradial amputation who used both prosthetic systems participated in this study. Each subject completed two questionnaires to evaluate their satisfaction and problems experienced with the two prosthetic systems. Satisfaction and problems with the prosthetic's wrist movements were analyzed in terms of the following: supination and pronation; flexion and extension; appearance; sweating; wounds; pain; irritation; pistoning; smell; sound; durability; and the abilities to open a door, hold a cup, and pick up or place objects. This study revealed that the respondents were more satisfied with the biomechatronics wrist prosthesis with regard to supination and pronation, flexion and extension, pain, and the ability to open a door. However, satisfaction with the prosthesis showed no significant differences in terms of sweating, wounds, irritation, pistoning, smell, sound, and durability. The abilities to hold a cup and pick up or place an object were significantly better with the body-powered prosthesis. The results of the survey suggest that satisfaction and problems with wrist movements in persons with transradial amputation can be improved with a biomechatronics wrist prosthesis compared with the common body-powered prosthesis.
Good suspension lessens the pistoning (vertical displacement) of the residual limb inside the prosthetic socket. Several methods are used for measuring the pistoning.
The effects of Seal-In X5 and Dermo liner (Össur) on suspension and patient's comfort in lower limb amputees are unclear. In this report, we consider the case of a 51-yr-old woman with bilateral transtibial amputation whose lower limbs were amputated because of peripheral vascular disease. The subject had bony and painful residual limbs, especially at the distal ends. Two prostheses that used Seal-In X5 liners and a pair of prostheses with Dermo liners were fabricated, and the subject wore each for a period of 2 wks. Once the 2 wks had passed, the pistoning within the socket was assessed and the patient was questioned as to her satisfaction with both liners. This study revealed that Seal-In X5 liner decreased the residual limb pain experienced by the patient and that 1-2 mm less pistoning occurred within the socket compared with the Dermo liner. However, the patient needed to put in extra effort for donning and doffing the prosthesis. Despite this, it is clear that the Seal-In X5 liner offers a viable alternative for individuals with transtibial amputations who do not have enough soft tissue around the bone, especially at the end of the residual limb.
The method of attachment of prosthesis to the residual limb (suspension) and socket fitting is a critical issue in the process of providing an amputee with prosthesis. Different suspension methods try to minimize the pistoning movement inside the socket. The Seal-In(®) X5 and Dermo(®) Liner by Ossur are new suspension liners that intend to reduce pistoning between the socket and liner. Since the effects of these new liners on suspension are unclear, the objective of this study was to compare the pistoning effect of Seal-In(®) X5 and Dermo(®) Liner by using Vicon Motion System.