LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Journal: Clinical Rheumatology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Functional foot orthoses, Original Article, Gait, Randomised trial, Feasibility, Osteoarthritis, R1, Foot, Midfoot osteoarthritis
This randomised feasibility study aimed to examine the clinical and biomechanical effects of functional foot orthoses (FFOs) in the treatment of midfoot osteoarthritis (OA) and the feasibility of conducting a full randomised controlled trial. Participants with painful, radiographically confirmed midfoot OA were recruited and randomised to receive either FFOs or a sham control orthosis. Feasibility measures included recruitment and attrition rates, practicality of blinding and adherence rates. Clinical outcome measures were: change from baseline to 12?weeks for severity of pain (numerical rating scale), foot function (Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index) and patient global impression of change scale. To investigate the biomechanical effect of foot orthoses, in-shoe foot kinematics and plantar pressures were evaluated at 12?weeks. Of the 119 participants screened, 37 were randomised and 33 completed the study (FFO?=?18, sham?=?15). Compliance with foot orthoses and blinding of the intervention was achieved in three quarters of the group. Both groups reported improvements in pain, function and global impression of change; the FFO group reporting greater improvements compared to the sham group. The biomechanical outcomes indicated the FFO group inverted the hindfoot and increased midfoot maximum plantar force compared to the sham group. The present findings suggest FFOs worn over 12?weeks may provide detectable clinical and biomechanical benefits compared to sham orthoses. This feasibility study provides useful clinical, biomechanical and statistical information for the design and implementation of a definitive randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of FFOs in treating painful midfoot OA. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10067-015-2946-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Badley E, Tennant A (1993) Impact of disablement due to rheumatic disorders in a British population: estimates of severity and prevalence from the Calderdale Rheumatic Disablement Survey. Br Med J 52(1):6-13
    • 2. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, Gabriel S, Hirsch R, Hochberg MC, Hunder GG (2008) Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: Part II. Arthritis Rheum 58(1):26-35
    • 3. Mili F, Helmick CG, Moriarty DG (2003) Health related quality of life among adults reporting arthritis: analysis of data from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system, US, 1996-99. J Rheumatol 30(1):160-166
    • 4. Van Saase J, Van Romunde L, Cats A, Vandenbroucke J, Valkenburg H (1989) Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: Zoetermeer survey. Comparison of radiological osteoarthritis in a Dutch population with that in 10 other populations. Ann Rheum Dis 48(4): 271-280
    • 5. Wilder FV, Barrett JP, Farina EJ (2005) The association of radiographic foot osteoarthritis and radiographic osteoarthritis at other sites. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13(3):211-215
    • 6. Menz HB, Munteanu SE, Landorf KB, Zammit GV, Cicuttini FM (2007) Radiographic classification of osteoarthritis in commonly affected joints of the foot. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(11):1333- 1338
    • 7. Roddy E, Thomas MJ, Marshall M, Rathod T, Myers H, Menz HB, Thomas E, Peat G (2015) The population prevalence of symptomatic radiographic foot osteoarthritis in community-dwelling older adults: cross-sectional findings from the clinical assessment study of the foot. Ann Rheum Dis 74(1):156-163
    • 8. Roddy E, Muller S, Thomas E (2011) Onset and persistence of disabling foot pain in community-dwelling older adults over a 3- year period: a prospective cohort study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 66(4):474-480
    • 9. Menz H, Munteanu S, Landorf K, Zammit G, Cicuttini F (2009) Radiographic evaluation of foot osteoarthritis: sensitivity of radiographic variables and relationship to symptoms. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 17(3):298-303
    • 10. Menz H, Munteanu S, Zammit G, Landorf K (2010) Foot structure and function in older people with radiographic osteoarthritis of the medial midfoot. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18(3):317-322
    • 11. Rao S, Baumhauer JF, Nawoczenski DA (2011) Is barefoot regional plantar loading related to self-reported foot pain in patients with midfoot osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19(8):1019-1025
    • 12. Rao S, Baumhauer J, Tome J, Nawoczenski D (2010) Orthoses alter in vivo segmental foot kinematics during walking in patients with midfoot arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(4):608-614
    • 13. Ibuki A, Cornoiu A, Clarke A, Unglik R, Beischer A (2010) The effect of orthotic treatment on midfoot osteoarthritis assessed using specifically designed patient evaluation questionnaires. Prosthet Orthot Int 34(4):461-471
    • 14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2014) Osteoarthritis: care and management in adults (CG177). In: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. http://www. nice.org.uk/guidance/cg177 Accessed 12 April 2015
    • 15. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359(9306):614-618
    • 16. Julious S (2005) Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 4:287-291
    • disabling foot pain: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 342: d3411 Wright CJ, Arnold BL, Coffey TG, Pidcoe PE (2011) Repeatability of the modified Oxford foot model during gait in healthy adults.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    40
    40%
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article