Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36571629›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

Pedobarographic evaluation of five commonly used orthoses for the lower extremity.

C Ehrnthaller, K Rellensmann, S F Baumbach, M Wuehr, R Schniepp, M M Saller, W Böcker, Hans Polzer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pedobarographic evaluations in physical medicine and rehabilitation practice.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023
    Review
  7. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C Ehrnthaller *Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
K Rellensmann *Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
S F BaumbachDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
M WuehrGerman Center for Vertigo and Balance Disorders, University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany.
R SchnieppGerman Center for Vertigo and Balance Disorders, University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany.
M M SallerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
W BöckerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Hans PolzerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. hans.polzer@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6713-4017
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEGerman Center for Lung Research · DELMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOrthoses are designed to achieve immobilization or off-loading of certain regions of the foot. Yet, their off-loading capacity for the specific regions has not yet been studied. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the plantar pressure distribution of five commonly applied orthoses for foot and ankle in a healthy population. MATERIALS AND

methodsFive orthoses (postoperative shoe, forefoot relief shoe, short walker boot, high walker boot, and calcaneus fracture orthosis) were compared pedobarographically using insoles on a treadmill to a ready-made running shoe in eleven healthy subjects (median age 29 years). Peak pressure, maximum force, force-time integral, contact time, and contact area were evaluated separately for the forefoot, midfoot, and hindfoot.

resultsThe forefoot relief shoe, the short- and high walker boot significantly reduced the peak pressure at the forefoot with no significant differences between these orthoses. None of the five orthoses off-loaded the midfoot, but the calcaneus fracture orthosis and the short walker boot instead increased midfoot load. For the hindfoot, the calcaneus fracture orthosis was the only device to significantly reduce the peak pressure.

conclusionsThis is the first study to investigate the specific off-loading capacities of different orthoses for specific foot regions in a healthy collective. The knowledge of absolute and relative load shifts for the different orthoses is of fundamental interest for targeted clinical decision-making of physicians.

Indexed as

Foot OrthosesOrthotic DevicesAdultBracesFootHumansLower ExtremityPressureFoot and ankle surgeryOrthotic devicePedobarographyPlantar pressure

Identifiers

PMID36571629
PMCPMC10293377
OpenAlexW4312196231

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.