Clinical and radiological outcomes of corrective exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation in children with flexible flatfeet: A randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of Functional Re-Education as a Treatment for Infantile Flexible Flatfoot: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Flexible pediatric flatfoot is an anatomical presentation of the foot that is common in children, and its functional impact raises long-term uncertainty. Functional re-education includes strengthening and stretching exercises for the intrinsic and extrinsic musculature of the foot, proposed as an effective conservative treatment. However, to date, there is no systematic review examining its effectiveness in the pediatric population. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of functional re-education as a conservative treatment for flexible pediatric flatfoot, determining which exercises are most effective.

METHODS

A search (PROSPERO: CRD42023391030) was conducted across six databases, resulting in an initial total of 327 studies. Of these, 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria, resulting in a sample of 419 children aged 6 to 14 years with a diagnosis of flexible flatfoot. The evaluated studies present variations in diagnostic criteria, types of exercises, and treatment duration.

RESULTS

The results indicate that functional re-education is effective in improving the symptomatology and functionality of the foot in children. In particular, exercises targeting the intrinsic musculature proved to be among the most effective treatments, improving the structural development of the medial longitudinal arch. The reviewed literature recommends a minimum treatment duration of eight weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional re-education represents an effective conservative treatment option for flexible flatfoot in children, positioning it as the treatment of choice for this condition.

Effects of Rhythm Step Training on Foot and Lower Limb Balance in Children and Adolescents with Flat Feet: A Radiographic Analysis

Background and Objectives: Owing to the recent reports regarding the efficacy of rhythm step training (RST) in lower limb muscle development and motor skill enhancement, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of RST on foot and lower limb balance in children and adolescents diagnosed with flat feet using radiographic analysis. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 children and adolescents diagnosed with flat feet from a hospital in Seoul were randomly assigned to the general flat feet training (GFFT) (n = 80) or RST (n = 80) group. Patients in both groups exercised for 50 min once a week for 12 weeks. Key variables, such as quadriceps angle (Q-angle), calcaneal pitch angle (CPA), calcaneal-first metatarsal angle (CFMA), and navicular-cuboid overlap ratio (OR) were measured before and after the intervention. Results: Significant improvements in Q-angle (p < 0.001), CPA (p < 0.001), CFMA (p < 0.001), and navicular-cuboid OR (p < 0.001) were observed in the RST group compared to the GFFT group. RST was found to be more effective in normalizing the biomechanical function of the calcaneus and improving lower limb function. Conclusions: RST significantly enhances foot and lower limb balance in children and adolescents with flat feet, suggesting its potential use as an effective intervention for this population. The study did not specifically analyze the effects of various components of rhythm training, such as music, exercise intensity, and frequency, on the outcomes. Further research is needed to determine how each of these elements individually influences the results.

Investigation of inter-rater and test-retest reliability of Y balance test in college students with flexible flatfoot

BACKGROUND

The Lower Quarter Y Balance Test (YBT-LQ) has been widely used to assess dynamic balance in various populations. Dynamic balance in flexible flatfoot populations is one of the risk factors for lower extremity injuries, especially in college populations in which more exercise is advocated. However, no study has demonstrated the reliability of the YBT-LQ in a college student flexible flatfoot population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study. 30 college students with flexible flatfoot were recruited from Beijing Sports University. They have been thrice assessed for the maximal reach distance of YBT under the support of the lower limb on the flatfoot side. Test and retest were performed with an interval of 14 days. The outcome measures using the composite score and normalized maximal reach distances in three directions (anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral). The relative reliability was reported as the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Minimal Detectable Change (MDC), Smallest worthwhile change (SWC), and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) were used to report the absolute reliability.

RESULTS

For inter-rater reliability, the ICC values for all directions ranged from 0.84 to 0.92, SEM values ranged from 2.01 to 3.10%, SWC values ranged from 3.67 to 5.12%, and MDC95% values ranged from 5.58 to 8.60%. For test-retest reliability, the ICC values for all directions ranged from 0.81 to 0.92, SEM values ranged from 1.80 to 2.97%, SWC values ranged from 3.75 to 5.61%, and MDC95% values ranged from 4.98 to 8.24%.

CONCLUSIONS

The YBT-LQ has "good" to "excellent" inter-rater and test-retest reliability. It appears to be a reliable assessment to use with college students with flexible flatfoot.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with the ID number ChiCTR2300075906 on 19/09/2023.

Effects of short foot training on foot posture in patients with flatfeet: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With lifestyle changes, the prevalence of flatfoot is increasing year by year, with a prevalence of 29%. Flatfoot will lead to an inevitable injury and reduce the quality of life. Short foot exercises can enhance the strength of the intrinsic muscles of the foot and improve the symptoms of flatfoot. However, there is controversy regarding its specific efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis quantitatively evaluates the effect of short foot training on patients with flatfeet and provides evidence to inform the clinical approach to short foot training in patients with flat feet.

METHODS

A total of eight databases were searched, including CNKI, WANFANG, VIP, and CBM in Chinese and PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase in English. The timeframe for searching the literature was March 2023 for each database build. English database search terms and search formulas were: (flat foot OR talipes valgus OR talipes calcaneovalgus) AND (short foot exercises OR physical therapy OR neurophysiotherapy).

RESULTS

The current pooled results show no significant difference in the improvement of the navicular drop test and foot posture index with short foot exercises compared to controls; only short foot exercises greater than 6 w showed a significant improvement in the navicular drop test, and sensitivity analysis showed a significant improvement in the foot posture index with short foot exercises.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that short foot exercises need a larger sample size to find their effect on improving flat feet; the duration of the intervention is a factor. As most studies are currently unclear whether the participants were patients with flat feet or asymptomatic individuals with flat feet the disease syndrome in patients with flatfoot may also be a factor.

Foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet

BACKGROUND

Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no optimal strategy, nor consensus, for using foot orthoses (FOs) to treat paediatric flat feet.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to 01 September 2021, and two clinical trials registers on 07 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FOs as an intervention for paediatric flat feet. The outcomes included in this review were pain, function, quality of life, treatment success, and adverse events. Intended comparisons were: any FOs versus sham, any FOs versus shoes, customised FOs (CFOs) versus prefabricated FOs (PFOs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methods recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials with 1058 children, aged 11 months to 19 years, with flexible flat feet. Distinct flat foot presentations included asymptomatic, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), symptomatic and developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD). The trial interventions were FOs, footwear, foot and rehabilitative exercises, and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Due to heterogeneity, we did not pool the data. Most trials had potential for selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting bias. No trial blinded participants. We present the results separately for asymptomatic (healthy children) and symptomatic (children with JIA) flat feet. The certainty of evidence was very low to low, downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness. Three comparisons were evaluated across trials: CFO versus shoes; PFO versus shoes; CFO versus PFO. Asymptomatic flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low-quality evidence showed that CFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.07); absolute decrease (11.8%, 95% CI 4.7% fewer to 15.8% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19); absolute effect (3.4% more, 95% CI 4.1% fewer to 13.1% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low to very-low quality evidence showed that PFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point VAS) at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16); absolute effect (4.7% fewer, 95% CI 18.9% fewer to 12.6% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.23). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (1 trial, 108 participants): low-quality evidence found no difference in the proportion without pain at one year (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18); absolute effect (7.4% fewer, 95% CI 22.2% fewer to 11.1% more); or on withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). Function and quality of life (QoL) were not assessed. Symptomatic (JIA) flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 28 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) between groups (MD -1.5, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.22). Low-quality evidence showed improvements in function with CFOs (Foot Function Index - FFI disability, 0 to 100, 0 best function; MD -18.55, 95% CI -34.42 to -2.68), child-rated QoL (PedsQL, 0 to 100, 100 best quality; MD 12.1, 95% CI -1.6 to 25.8) and parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 9, 95% CI -4.1 to 22.1) and little or no difference between groups in treatment success (timed walking; MD -1.33 seconds, 95% CI -2.77 to 0.11), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.94); absolute difference (9.7% fewer, 20.5 % fewer to 44.8% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 25 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain between groups (MD 0.02, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.98). Low-quality evidence showed no difference between groups in function (FFI-disability MD -4.17, 95% CI -24.4 to 16.06), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -3.84, 95% CI -19 to 11.33), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -0.64, 95% CI -13.22 to 11.94). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (2 trials, 87 participants): low-quality evidence showed little or no difference between groups in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) at 3 months (MD -1.48, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.26), function (FFI-disability MD -7.28, 95% CI -15.47 to 0.92), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 8.6, 95% CI -3.9 to 21.2), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 2.9, 95% CI -11 to 16.8).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low to very low-certainty evidence shows that the effect of CFOs (high cost) or PFOs (low cost) versus shoes, and CFOs versus PFOs on pain, function and HRQoL is uncertain. This is pertinent for clinical practice, given the economic disparity between CFOs and PFOs. FOs may improve pain and function, versus shoes in children with JIA, with minimal delineation between costly CFOs and generic PFOs. This review updates that from 2010, confirming that in the absence of pain, the use of high-cost CFOs for healthy children with flexible flat feet has no supporting evidence, and draws very limited conclusions about FOs for treating paediatric flat feet. The availability of normative and prospective foot development data, dismisses most flat foot concerns, and negates continued attention to this topic. Attention should be re-directed to relevant paediatric foot conditions, which cause pain, limit function, or reduce quality of life. The agenda for researching asymptomatic flat feet in healthy children must be relegated to history, and replaced by a targeted research rationale, addressing children with indisputable foot pathology from discrete diagnoses, namely JIA, cerebral palsy, congenital talipes equino varus, trisomy 21 and Charcot Marie Tooth. Whether research resources should continue to be wasted on studying flat feet in healthy children that do not hurt, is questionable. Future updates of this review will address only relevant paediatric foot conditions.

Foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet

BACKGROUND

Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no optimal strategy, nor consensus, for using foot orthoses (FOs) to treat paediatric flat feet.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to 01 September 2021, and two clinical trials registers on 07 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FOs as an intervention for paediatric flat feet. The outcomes included in this review were pain, function, quality of life, treatment success, and adverse events. Intended comparisons were: any FOs versus sham, any FOs versus shoes, customised FOs (CFOs) versus prefabricated FOs (PFOs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methods recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials with 1058 children, aged 11 months to 19 years, with flexible flat feet. Distinct flat foot presentations included asymptomatic, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), symptomatic and developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD). The trial interventions were FOs, footwear, foot and rehabilitative exercises, and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Due to heterogeneity, we did not pool the data. Most trials had potential for selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting bias. No trial blinded participants. We present the results separately for asymptomatic (healthy children) and symptomatic (children with JIA) flat feet. The certainty of evidence was very low to low, downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness. Three comparisons were evaluated across trials: CFO versus shoes; PFO versus shoes; CFO versus PFO. Asymptomatic flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low-quality evidence showed that CFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.07); absolute decrease (11.8%, 95% CI 4.7% fewer to 15.8% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19); absolute effect (3.4% more, 95% CI 4.1% fewer to 13.1% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low to very-low quality evidence showed that PFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point VAS) at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16); absolute effect (4.7% fewer, 95% CI 18.9% fewer to 12.6% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.23). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (1 trial, 108 participants): low-quality evidence found no difference in the proportion without pain at one year (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18); absolute effect (7.4% fewer, 95% CI 22.2% fewer to 11.1% more); or on withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). Function and quality of life (QoL) were not assessed. Symptomatic (JIA) flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 28 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) between groups (MD -1.5, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.22). Low-quality evidence showed improvements in function with CFOs (Foot Function Index - FFI disability, 0 to 100, 0 best function; MD -18.55, 95% CI -34.42 to -2.68), child-rated QoL (PedsQL, 0 to 100, 100 best quality; MD 12.1, 95% CI -1.6 to 25.8) and parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 9, 95% CI -4.1 to 22.1) and little or no difference between groups in treatment success (timed walking; MD -1.33 seconds, 95% CI -2.77 to 0.11), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.94); absolute difference (9.7% fewer, 20.5 % fewer to 44.8% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 25 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain between groups (MD 0.02, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.98). Low-quality evidence showed no difference between groups in function (FFI-disability MD -4.17, 95% CI -24.4 to 16.06), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -3.84, 95% CI -19 to 11.33), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -0.64, 95% CI -13.22 to 11.94). 3. CFOs versus PFsO (2 trials, 87 participants): low-quality evidence showed little or no difference between groups in pain (0 to scale, 0 no pain) at 3 months (MD -1.48, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.26), function (FFI-disability MD -7.28, 95% CI -15.47 to 0.92), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 8.6, 95% CI -3.9 to 21.2), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 2.9, 95% CI -11 to 16.8).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low to very low-certainty evidence shows that the effect of CFOs (high cost) or PFOs (low cost) versus shoes, and CFOs versus PFOs on pain, function and HRQoL is uncertain. This is pertinent for clinical practice, given the economic disparity between CFOs and PFOs. FOs may improve pain and function, versus shoes in children with JIA, with minimal delineation between costly CFOs and generic PFOs. This review updates that from 2010, confirming that in the absence of pain, the use of high-cost CFOs for healthy children with flexible flat feet has no supporting evidence, and draws very limited conclusions about FOs for treating paediatric flat feet. The availability of normative and prospective foot development data, dismisses most flat foot concerns, and negates continued attention to this topic. Attention should be re-directed to relevant paediatric foot conditions, which cause pain, limit function, or reduce quality of life. The agenda for researching asymptomatic flat feet in healthy children must be relegated to history, and replaced by a targeted research rationale, addressing children with indisputable foot pathology from discrete diagnoses, namely JIA, cerebral palsy, congenital talipes equino varus, trisomy 21 and Charcot Marie Tooth. Whether research resources should continue to be wasted on studying flat feet in healthy children that do not hurt, is questionable. Future updates of this review will address only relevant paediatric foot conditions.