Footwear Interventions for Foot and Ankle Arthritis
Table 4 . Characteristics of included lab-based intervention studies .
Author Nos . (% female )
Hennessy et al . 2007 [ 20 ]
Stewart et al . [ 23 ]
20 RA ( 80 %)
• 21 Gout ( 5 %)
• 15 Gout ( 13 %)
Sample characteristics , mean ( SD )
• Age : 60 ( 11 )
• Disease duration : not reported
• Good footwear group
• Age : 57 ( 13 )
• Disease duration : 13 ( 8 )
• Poor footwear group
• Age : 58 ( 14 )
• Disease duration : 18 ( 13 )
Interventions |
Control |
Outcome measures |
Findings |
Quality |
|
|
|
|
score |
• Running shoe ( Brooks Glycerine 3 , Texas Peak Pty Ltd .)
• Commercially available , ‘ premium ’ cushioned running shoe
• Orthopaedic footwear ( P . W . Minor and Son )
• Extra-depth , cushioning
• Good footwear characteristics
• ( ASICS CardioZip )
• Leather upper , rubber sole , dual density midsole , rigid heel counter , moderate midfoot sole stability , heel and forefoot cushioning
• Poor footwear characteristics
• ( Dunlop Asteroid )
• Synthetic upper , rubbersole , single density midsole , minimal heel counter stiffness , minimal midfoot sole stability , no cushioning
• ( Dunlop Apollo ) Syntheticupper , synthetic sole , single density midsole , minimal heel counter stiffness , minimal midfoot sole stability , no cushioning
• ( Helix Viper )
• Synthetic upper , Phylonsole , single \ density midsole , moderate heel counter stiffness , minimal midfoot sole stability , heel and forefoot cushioning
Control ( Dunlop volley ) Sock liner removed , thin flexible sole
• Between group
• Good footwear characteristics and poor footwear characteristics
• Within group
• Participant ’ s own footwear
Primary outcome Plantar pressure ( PPP , PTI )
• Primary outcome Not stated
• Outcomes assessed
• Plantar pressure ( PPP , PTI )
• Temporal-spatial ( walking velocity , step length , stride length , cadence )
Between group measures 64 % PPP significantly reduced at forefoot , rearfoot and total foot in running shoe ( p < 0.001 ) and orthopaedic shoe ( p < 0.001 ) compared to control . PTI significantly reduced at forefoot ( p < 0.001 ), rearfoot ( p = 0.008 ) and total foot ( p < 0.001 ) with the running shoe compared to the control . PTI significantly reduced at forefoot ( p < 0.001 ) and total foot ( p < 0.001 ) with the orthopaedic shoe compared to the control . Within group measures Not assessed .
Between group measures :
• Significant decrease in PPP at the medial heel ( p = 0.000 ) and 5MTP ( p = 0.000 ) in the good footwear group compared to the poor footwear group .
• Significant decrease in PTI at the heel ( p = 0.003 ), lateral heel ( p = 0.001 ) and 5MTP ( p = 0.005 ) and a significant increase in PTI at the midfoot ( p = 0.000 ) in the good footwear group compared to the poor footwear group .
• No significant differences in velocity , step length , stride length or cadence between groups .
Within within group measures :
• Significant reduction in PPP at 3MTP ( p ¼ 0.003 ) and 5MTP ( p ¼ 0.001 ). Decreased PTI at heel ( p ¼ 0.000 ), 3MTP ( p ¼ 0.000 ) and 5MTP ( p ¼ 0.005 ) and increased PTI at midfoot ( p ¼ 0.000 ) with Good footwear group compared to control .
• Significant reduction in PPP at 3MTP ( p ¼ 0.004 ) and increased PPP at heel ( p ¼ 0.000 ) and lesser digits ( p ¼ 0.003 ). Decreased PTI at midfoot ( p ¼ 0.003 ) in Poor footwear group compared to control .
• Significant increase in velocity ( p ¼ 0.000 ), step length ( p ¼ 0.000 ) and stride length ( p ¼ 0.000 ) in both intervention groups compared to control .
64 %
64 % only groups at 12 weeks . A further RCT [ 21 ] compared extra-depth footwear with semirigid foot orthoses compared to extra-depth footwear with soft orthoses . After 24 weeks , no significant difference was found between groups ( d = 0.46 ; small effect ), however , significant within group improvements in foot pain was observed in the footwear with semi-rigid orthoses group ( d = 0.56 ; medium effect ) and the footwear with soft orthoses
32 Pedorthic Footcare Association | www . pedorthics . org