Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30729337›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2019

Plantar pressure changes in hindfoot relief devices of different designs.

F Mazur, B Swoboda, H D Carl, C Lutter, M Engelhardt, M W Hoppe, T Hotfiel, C Grim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Pedobarographic evaluations in physical medicine and rehabilitation practice.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prospective Cohort Validation Study of a Novel Foot Offloading Device.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

F MazurDivision of Orthopaedic Rheumatology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Rathsberger Str. 57, D-91054, Erlangen, Germany.
B SwobodaDivision of Orthopaedic Rheumatology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Rathsberger Str. 57, D-91054, Erlangen, Germany.
H D CarlDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Martha-Maria Hospital, Nuremberg, Germany.
C LutterDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Sports Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Klinikum Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
M EngelhardtDepartment of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Hand Surgery, Klinikum Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
M W HoppeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Hand Surgery, Klinikum Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
T HotfielDivision of Orthopaedic Rheumatology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Rathsberger Str. 57, D-91054, Erlangen, Germany. thilo.hotfiel@fau.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7246-0020
C GrimDepartment of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Hand Surgery, Klinikum Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is frequently observed that overloading the foot can impair bone and soft tissue healing and can lead to harmful sequelae (i.e. ulcers, stress reactions) in context of pre-existing tissue disabilities. In terms of offloading, hindfoot relief devices are commonly applied as a non-operative treatment as well as after various surgical procedures for hindfoot disorders. Despite their common use, there is a paucity of data comparing different orthotic devices with respect to changes in plantar pressure distributions. The aim of this study was to investigate plantar loadings in hindfoot relief devices of different designs.

methodsTwenty-five healthy participants (13 women, 12 men; (mean ± SD) age 37 ± 14 years; BMI 23 ± 4 kg/m

resultsConcerning the hindfoot, using the HRS as well as the HRO resulted in significant decreases in plantar pressures compared to baseline values that were obtained with the neutral shoe (- 52% for the HRS and - 52% for the HRO, p < 0.001). Significant increases in peak pressures were found in the midfoot region for both devices (HRS: 32%, p = 0.002; HRO: 47%, p < 0.001). For the metatarsal region, peak pressures were found to decrease significantly (HRS: - 52%, p < 0.001; HRO: -17%, p = 0.034). With respect to the forefoot, a significant reduction in peak pressures using the HRS (- 41%, p < 0.001) was detected, whereas the HRO did not lead to significant changes (- 4%, p = 0.691).

conclusionsBoth the HRO and HRS significantly reduced plantar hindfoot pressure, corresponding to a relative decrease of nearly 50% of the baseline. Nevertheless, the adjacent midfoot zone displayed a significant increase in plantar pressure values for both devices. Supported by these findings, physicians should cautiously consider a substantial increase in midfoot loading, especially in patients affected by additional midfoot injuries or accompanying impairments of tissue healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Case series.

Indexed as

BiomechanicsFootHindfoot relief shoesKineticsPedobarographyPlantar pressurePlantar ulcersStress fractures

Identifiers

PMID30729337
PMCPMC6367492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.