[Vacuum shoe system vs.forefoot offloading shoe for the management of metatarsal fractures. A prospective, randomized trial]

Self-Adapting Foot Orthosis Inlay Facilitates Handling and Reduces Plantar Pressure Compared to Vacuum-Based Technology

Background/Objectives: Orthoses are commonly used in the treatment of various foot and ankle injuries and deformities. An effective technology in foot orthoses is a vacuum system to improve the fit and function of the orthosis. Recently, a new technology was designed to facilitate the wearing of the foot orthoses while maintaining function without the need for vacuum suction. Methods: A plantar dynamic pressure distribution measurement was carried out in 25 healthy subjects (13 w/12 m, age 23-58 y) using capacitive measuring insoles in two differently designed inlays within the VACOpedes® orthosis (Group A: vacuum inlay vs. Group B: XELGO® inlay) and a regular off-the-shelf shoe (Group C, OTS). The peak plantar pressure, mean plantar pressure and maximum force were analyzed in the entire foot and in individual regions of the medial and lateral forefoot, the midfoot and the hindfoot. Finally, the wearing comfort was compared using a visual analog scale from 1 to 10 (highest comfort). Results: The peak pressure of both inlays was significantly lower than in the OTS shoe (A: 230.6 ± 44.6 kPa, B: 218.0 ± 49.7 kPa, C: 278.6 ± 50.5 kPa; p < 0.001). In a sub-analysis of the different regions, the XELGO® inlay significantly reduced plantar pressure in the medial forefoot compared to the vacuum orthosis (A: 181.7 ± 45.7 kPa, B: 158.6 ± 51.7 kPa, p < 0.002). The wearing comfort was significantly higher with the XELGO® inlay compared to the vacuum inlay (A: 5.68/10, B: 7.24/10; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The VACOpedes® orthosis with a new XELGO® inlay showed at least equivalent relief in all pressure distribution measurements analyzed and greater relief in the forefoot area than the VACOpedes® orthosis with a vacuum inlay, as well as increased wearing comfort.

Use of Wearable Technology to Measure Activity in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are widely used for measurement of functional outcomes after orthopaedic trauma. However, PROMs rely on patient collaboration and suffer from various types of bias. Wearable Activity Monitors (WAMs) are increasingly used to objectify functional assessment. The objectives of this systematic review were to identify and characterise the WAMs technology and metrics currently used for orthopaedic trauma research.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase biomedical literature search engines were queried. Eligibility criteria included: Human clinical studies published in the English language between 2010 and 2019 involving fracture management and WAMs. Variables collected from each article included: Technology used, vendor/product, WAM body location, metrics measured, measurement time period, year of publication, study geographic location, phase of treatment studied, fractures studied, number of patients studied, sex and age of the study subjects, and study level of evidence. Six investigators reviewed the resulting papers. Descriptive statistics of variables of interest were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-six papers were available for analysis, showing an increasing trend of publications per year. Accelerometry followed by plantar pressure insoles were the most commonly employed technologies. The most common location for WAM placement was insoles, followed by the waist. The most commonly studied fracture type was hip fractures followed by fragility fractures in general, ankle, "lower extremity", and tibial fractures. The rehabilitation phase following surgery was the most commonly studied period. Sleep duration, activity time or step counts were the most commonly reported WAM metrics. A preferred, clinically validated WAM metric was not identified.

CONCLUSIONS

WAMs have an increasing presence in the orthopaedic trauma literature. The optimal implementation of this technology and its use to understand patients' pre-injury and post-injury functions is currently insufficiently explored and represents an area that will benefit from future study.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO ID:210344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00629-0.

Plantar pressure changes in hindfoot relief devices of different designs

BACKGROUND

It is frequently observed that overloading the foot can impair bone and soft tissue healing and can lead to harmful sequelae (i.e. ulcers, stress reactions) in context of pre-existing tissue disabilities. In terms of offloading, hindfoot relief devices are commonly applied as a non-operative treatment as well as after various surgical procedures for hindfoot disorders. Despite their common use, there is a paucity of data comparing different orthotic devices with respect to changes in plantar pressure distributions. The aim of this study was to investigate plantar loadings in hindfoot relief devices of different designs.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthy participants (13 women, 12 men; (mean ± SD) age 37 ± 14 years; BMI 23 ± 4 kg/m2) were recruited. Plantar pressure distributions were collected using i.) a neutral shoe, ii.) a hindfoot relief shoe (HRS) and iii.) a hindfoot relief orthosis (HRO). Peak pressure values were measured via dynamic pedobarography during walking and were analysed from four different plantar regions: the hindfoot, midfoot, metatarsal I-V and forefoot. As a reference standard, the normal walk using neutral shoes served as the condition for full weight-bearing.

RESULTS

Concerning the hindfoot, using the HRS as well as the HRO resulted in significant decreases in plantar pressures compared to baseline values that were obtained with the neutral shoe (- 52% for the HRS and - 52% for the HRO, p < 0.001). Significant increases in peak pressures were found in the midfoot region for both devices (HRS: 32%, p = 0.002; HRO: 47%, p < 0.001). For the metatarsal region, peak pressures were found to decrease significantly (HRS: - 52%, p < 0.001; HRO: -17%, p = 0.034). With respect to the forefoot, a significant reduction in peak pressures using the HRS (- 41%, p < 0.001) was detected, whereas the HRO did not lead to significant changes (- 4%, p = 0.691).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the HRO and HRS significantly reduced plantar hindfoot pressure, corresponding to a relative decrease of nearly 50% of the baseline. Nevertheless, the adjacent midfoot zone displayed a significant increase in plantar pressure values for both devices. Supported by these findings, physicians should cautiously consider a substantial increase in midfoot loading, especially in patients affected by additional midfoot injuries or accompanying impairments of tissue healing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Case series.