George S. Murley

Background: Foot orthoses are widely used in the prevention and treatment of foot disorders. The aim of this study was to describe characteristics of custom‐made foot orthosis prescriptions from a Australian podiatric orthotic laboratory.Methods: One thousand consecutive foot orthosis prescription forms were obtained from a commercial prescription foot orthosis laboratory located in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (Footwork Podiatric Laboratory). Each item from the prescription form was documented in relation to orthosis type, cast correction, arch fill technique, cast modifications, shell material, shell modifications and cover material. Cluster analysis and discriminant function analysis were applied to identify patterns in the prescription data.Results: Prescriptions were obtained from 178 clinical practices across Australia and Hong Kong, with patients ranging in age from 5 to 92 years. Three broad categories (‘clusters') were observed that were indicative of increasing ‘control’ of rearfoot pronation. A combination of five variables (rearfoot cast correction, cover shape, orthosis type, forefoot cast correction and plantar fascial accommodation) was able to identify these clusters with an accuracy of 70%. Significant differences between clusters were observed in relation to age and sex of the patient and the geographic location of the prescribing clinician.Conclusion: Foot orthosis prescriptions are complex, but can be broadly classified into three categories. Selection of these prescription subtypes appears to be influenced by both patient factors (age and sex) and clinician factors (clinic location).

Background: Foot orthoses are frequently used for the prevention of lower limb overuse injuries but evidence for their effectiveness is limited. The primary aim of this study is to determine if prefabricated foot orthoses reduce the incidence of lower limb overuse injuries in naval recruits undertaking 11 weeks of basic training.Methods: This study is a participant and assessor blinded, parallel‐group, randomised controlled trial. The trial will recruit participants undertaking 11 weeks of basic training at the Royal Australian Navy Recruit School, Cerberus, Victoria, Australia. Participants will be randomised to a control group (flat insole) or an intervention group (prefabricated foot orthosis). Over the 11 weeks of basic training, participants will document the presence and location of pain in weekly self‐report diaries. The end‐point for each participant will be the completion of 11 weeks of basic training. The primary outcome measure will be the combined incidence of four lower limb injuries (medial tibial stress syndrome, patellofemoral pain, Achilles tendinopathy, and plantar fasciitis/plantar heel pain) which are common among defence members. Secondary outcome measures include: (i) overall incidence of lower limb pain, (ii) severity of lower limb pain, (iii) time to injury, (iv) time to drop‐out due to injury, (v) adverse events, (vi) number of lost training days, (vii) shoe comfort, and (viii) general health status. Data will be analysed using the intention‐to‐treat principle.Discussion: This randomised controlled trial will evaluate the effectiveness of prefabricated foot orthoses for the prevention of common lower limb overuse injuries in naval recruits.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12615000024549.

Background: Dynamic foot function is considered a risk factor for lower limb overuse injuries including Achilles tendinopathy, shin pain, patellofemoral pain and stress fractures. However, no single source has systematically appraised and summarised the literature to evaluate this proposed relationship. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate dynamic foot function as a risk factor for lower limb overuse injury.Methods: A systematic search was performed using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and SportDiscus in April 2014 to identify prospective cohort studies that utilised dynamic methods of foot assessment. Included studies underwent methodological quality appraisal by two independent reviewers using an adapted version of the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument (EAI). Effects were expressed as standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous scaled data, and risk ratios (RR) for nominal scaled data.Results: Twelve studies were included (total n = 3,773; EAI 0.44 to 1.20 out of 2.00, representing low to moderate quality). There was limited to very limited evidence for forefoot, midfoot and rearfoot plantar loading variables (SMD 0.47 to 0.85) and rearfoot kinematic variables (RR 2.67 to 3.43) as risk factors for patellofemoral pain; and plantar loading variables (forefoot, midfoot, rearfoot) as risk factors for Achilles tendinopathy (SMD 0.81 to 1.08). While there were significant findings from individual studies for plantar loading variables (SMD 0.3 to 0.84) and rearfoot kinematic variables (SMD 0.29 to 0.62) as risk factors for ‘non‐specific lower limb overuse injuries', these were often conflicting regarding different anatomical regions of the foot. Findings from three studies indicated no evidence that dynamic foot function is a risk factor for iliotibial band syndrome or lower limb stress fractures.Conclusion: This systematic review identified very limited evidence that dynamic foot function during walking and running is a risk factor for patellofemoral pain, Achilles tendinopathy, and non‐specific lower limb overuse injuries. It is unclear whether these risk factors can be identified clinically (without sophisticated equipment), or modified to prevent or manage these injuries. Future prospective cohort studies should address methodological limitations, avoid grouping different lower limb overuse injuries, and explore clinically meaningful representations of dynamic foot function.

Background: Static measures of foot posture are regularly used as part of a clinical examination to determine the need for foot level interventions. This is based on the premise that pronated and supinated foot postures may be risk factors for or associated with lower limb injury. This systematic review and meta‐analysis investigates foot posture (measured statically) as a potential risk factor for lower limb overuse injuries.Methods: A systematic search was performed using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, SportDiscus in April 2014, to identify prospective cohort studies that investigated foot posture and function as a risk factor for lower limb overuse injury. Eligible studies were classified based on the method of foot assessment: (i) static foot posture assessment; and/or (ii) dynamic foot function assessment. This review presents studies evaluating static foot posture. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers, using an adapted version of the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument (EAI). Where possible, effects were expressed as standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous scaled data, and risk ratios (RR) for nominal scaled data. Meta‐analysis was performed where injuries and outcomes were considered homogenous.Results: Twenty‐one studies were included (total n = 6,228; EAI 0.8 to 1.7 out of 2.0). There was strong evidence that a pronated foot posture was a risk factor for medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) development and very limited evidence that a pronated foot posture was a risk factor for patellofemoral pain development, although associated effect sizes were small (0.28 to 0.33). No relationship was identified between a pronated foot posture and any other evaluated pathology (i.e. foot/ankle injury, bone stress reactions and non‐specific lower limb overuse injury).Conclusion: This systematic review identified strong and very limited evidence of small effect that a pronated foot posture is a risk factor for MTSS and patellofemoral pain respectively. Evaluation of static foot posture should be included in a multifactorial assessment for both MTSS and patellofemoral pain, although only as a part of the potential injury risk profile. Whilst the included measures are clinically applicable, further studies are required to determine their relationship with dynamic foot function.

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between foot type and the morphometry of selected muscles and tendons of the lower limb. Sixty‐one healthy participants (31 male, 30 female; aged 27.1 ± 8.8 years) underwent gray‐scale musculoskeletal ultrasound examination to determine the anterior‐posterior (AP) thickness of tibialis anterior, tibialis posterior, and peroneus longus muscles and tendons as well as the Achilles tendon. Foot type was classified based on arch height and footprint measurements. Potentially confounding variables (height, weight, hip and waist circumference, rearfoot and ankle joint range of motion, and levels of physical activity) were also measured. Multiple linear regression models were used to determine the association between foot type with muscle and tendon morphometry accounting for potentially confounding variables. Foot type was significantly and independently associated with AP thickness of the tibialis anterior tendon, peroneus longus muscle, and Achilles tendon, accounting for approximately 7% to 16% of the variation. Flat‐arched feet were associated with a thicker tibialis anterior tendon, a thicker peroneus longus muscle, and a thinner Achilles tendon. Foot type is associated with morphometry of tendons that control sagittal plane motion of the rearfoot; and the peroneus longus muscle that controls frontal plane motion of the rearfoot. These findings may be related to differences in tendon loading during gait.