Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39020474›Full record

SynthesisJournal of foot and ankle research2024

Biomechanical effectiveness of controlled ankle motion boots: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Mason L Stolycia, David E Lunn, Will Stanier, Josh Walker, Richard A Wilkins

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Mason L StolyciaCarnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9735-2219
David E LunnCarnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3158-0496
Will StanierPhysiotherapy Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0735-558X
Josh WalkerCarnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8507-7706
Richard A WilkinsNIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1885-5472

Funding

Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionControlled ankle motion (CAM) boots are a below-knee orthotic device prescribed for the management of foot and ankle injuries to reduce ankle range of motion (RoM) and offload the foot and ankle whilst allowing continued ambulation during recovery. There is a lack of clarity within the current literature surrounding the biomechanical understanding and effectiveness of CAM boots.

aimsTo summarise the biomechanical effects of CAM boot wear as an orthotic for restricting ankle RoM and offloading the foot.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. All papers were independently screened by two authors for inclusion. Methodological quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal checklists. A narrative synthesis of all eligible papers was produced.

resultsThirteen studies involving 197 participants (113 male and 84 female) were included. All studies were quasi-randomised and employed a within-study design, of which 12 studies included a control group and a range of CAM boots were investigated. CAM boots can be seen to restrict ankle RoM, however, neighboring joints such as the knee and hip do have kinetic and kinematic compensatory alterations. Plantar pressure of the forefoot is effectively redistributed to the hindfoot by CAM boots.

conclusionThe compensatory mechanisms at the hip and knee joint during CAM boot wear could explain the secondary site pain often reported in patients, specifically at the ipsilateral knee and contralateral hip. Although CAM boots can be used to restrict ankle motion, this review has highlighted a lack of in-boot kinematic analyses during CAM boot use, where tracking markers are placed on the anatomical structure rather than on the boot, or through video fluoroscopy, urging the need for a more robust methodological approach to achieve this. There is a need for studies to assess the biomechanical alterations caused by CAM boots in populations living with foot and ankle pathologies. Future research, adopting a longitudinal study design, is required to fully understand the effectiveness of CAM boots for rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Ankle JointRange of Motion, ArticularShoesAdultAnkle InjuriesBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleFoot OrthosesHumansMaleAchilles tendonfunctionorthotic walkerrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39020474
PMCPMC11633339

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.