ArticleClinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)2021
Simple model of arch support: Relevance to Charcot Neuroarthropathy.
Article in Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCharcot neuropathy is a common complication resulting from poorly controlled diabetes and peripheral neuropathy leading to the collapse, and ultimately the breakdown, of the midfoot. Mechanically, it is likely that a compromised arch support in this, or any other patient group that experiences foot flattening, would be associated with slippage at the distal and proximal interface regions of the plantar surface of the foot and the adjacent support surface. This slippage, although difficult to quantify with standard motion capture systems used in a gait laboratory, could potentially be assessed with systems for monitoring interface shear stresses. However, before investing in such systems, a correlation between arch flattening and interface shear stresses needs to be verified.
methodsFor this purpose, a sagittal plane model of a foot was developed using a multi-body dynamics package (MSC Adams). This model mimicked a subject swaying back and forth, and was constructed to show the dependence of interface stresses on altered arch support.
findingsThe model's predictions matched typical FootSTEPS data: lengthening of the arch of 1-2 mm, sway oscillations of 0.22-0.33 s and frictional force differences (calcaneus relative to forefoot) of 60 N. Of clinical relevance, when the stiffness of the plantar spring (representing aponeurosis and intrinsic muscles) was reduced by 10%, the frictional force difference increased by about 6.5%.
interpretationThe clinical implications of this study are that, while arch lengthening of less than 2 mm might be difficult to measure reliably in a gait lab, using shear sensors under the forefoot and hindfoot should allow arch support to be assessed in a repeatable manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.