-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Paediatric 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... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Child; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35080267
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006311.pub4 -
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Nov 2021Flatfoot is characterised by the falling of the medial longitudinal arch, eversion of the hindfoot and abduction of the loaded forefoot. Furthermore, flatfoot leads to a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Flatfoot is characterised by the falling of the medial longitudinal arch, eversion of the hindfoot and abduction of the loaded forefoot. Furthermore, flatfoot leads to a variety of musculoskeletal symptoms in the lower extremity, such as knee or hip pain. The standard conservative treatment for flatfoot deformity is exercise therapy or treatment with foot orthoses. Foot orthoses are prescribed for various foot complaints. However, the evidence for the provision of foot orthoses is inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence of foot orthoses for adults with flatfoot.
METHODS
A computerized search was conducted in August 2021, using the databases PubMed, Scopus, Pedro, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Intervention studies of any design investigating the effects of foot orthoses were included, apart from case studies. Two independent reviewers assessed all search results to identify eligible studies and to assess their methodological quality.
RESULTS
A total of 110 studies were identified through the database search. 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. These studies investigated prefabricated and custom-made foot orthoses, evaluating stance and plantar pressure during gait. The sample sizes of the identified studies ranged from 8 to 80. In most of the studies, the methodological quality was low and a lack of information was frequently detected.
CONCLUSION
There is a lack of evidence on the effect of foot orthoses for flatfoot in adults. This review illustrates the importance of conducting randomized controlled trials and the comprehensive development of guidelines for the prescription of foot orthoses. Given the weak evidence available, the common prescription of foot orthoses is somewhat surprising.
Topics: Adult; Flatfoot; Foot; Foot Orthoses; Gait; Humans; Lower Extremity
PubMed: 34844639
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-021-00499-z -
International Journal of Environmental... Jul 2022Background: This study aimed to explore the risk factors for flatfoot in children and adolescents to provide a reference basis for studying foot growth and development... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background: This study aimed to explore the risk factors for flatfoot in children and adolescents to provide a reference basis for studying foot growth and development in children and adolescents. Methods: We examined the cross-sectional research literature regarding flatfoot in children and adolescents published in the past 20 years, from 2001 to 2021, in four electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently searched the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and evaluated the literature quality of the selected research; from this, a total of 20 articles were included in our review. After the relevant data were extracted, the data were reviewed using Manager 5.4 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark), and the detection rate and risk factors for flatfoot in children were analyzed. Results: In total, 3602 children with flatfoot from 15 studies were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that being male (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.62, p = 0.005), being aged <9 years (age <6, OR = 3.11, 95% CI: 2.47, 3.90, p < 0.001; age 6−9 years, OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.70, p < 0.001), joint relaxation (OR = 4.82, 95% CI: 1.19, 19.41, p = 0.03), wearing sports shoes (OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.46, 6.03, p = 0.003), being a child living in an urban environment (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.66, 2.64, p < 0.001) and doing less exercise (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.80, p = 0.02) were risk factors for the detection of flatfoot. Conclusion: In summary, the detection rate of flatfoot in children in the past 20 years was found to be 25% through a meta-analysis. Among the children included, boys were more prone to flatfoot than girls, and the proportion of flatfoot decreased with age.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Flatfoot; Foot; Humans; Male; Risk Factors; Shoes
PubMed: 35886097
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148247 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Paediatric 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... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Child; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35029841
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006311.pub3 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Mar 2021There is evidence that a number of medical conditions and co-morbidities are associated with obesity in young children. This review explored whether there is evidence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Obesity in young children and its relationship with diagnosis of asthma, vitamin D deficiency, iron deficiency, specific allergies and flat-footedness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
There is evidence that a number of medical conditions and co-morbidities are associated with obesity in young children. This review explored whether there is evidence of associations with other conditions or co-morbidities. Observational studies of young children (mean age < 10 years) were identified using electronic searches of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and SPORTDiscus). Of 27 028 studies screened, 41 (comprising 44 comparisons) met the inclusion criteria. These studies provided data on five distinct diseases/conditions: asthma (n = 16), vitamin D deficiency (n = 10), iron deficiency (n = 10), allergies (n = 4) and flat-footedness (n = 4). Thirty-two studies were appropriate for meta-analysis using random-effects models, and revealed obesity was significantly associated with having asthma (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7), vitamin D deficiency (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.5) and iron deficiency (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.2). Heterogeneity (I ) ranged from 57% to 61%. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all studies. There was no evidence of a consistent association between obesity in young children and eczema, dermatitis or rhinitis due to the low number of studies. However, there was an association with flat-footedness. These results have implications for health policy and practice and families. Further research leading to a greater understanding of the associations identified in this review is suggested.
Topics: Anemia, Iron-Deficiency; Asthma; Child; Child, Preschool; Flatfoot; Humans; Pediatric Obesity; Vitamin D Deficiency
PubMed: 32808447
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13129 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jan 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of orthoses for flexible flatfeet in terms of patient-reported outcomes in children and adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of orthoses for flexible flatfeet in terms of patient-reported outcomes in children and adults.
METHODS
EMBASE, Medline (OvidSP), Web-of-Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, i.e., Cochrane Central and Pubmed were searched to identify relevant studies since their inception up to February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and prospective studies in which patient reported outcomes at baseline and follow-up in an orthoses group were compared with a no orthoses or sham sole group. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). A meta-analysis was performed where there were multiple studies with the same outcome measures, which was the case for the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain in adults.
RESULTS
In total nine studies were included: four RCT in children (N = 353) and four RCT and one prospective study in adults (N = 268) were included. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies. A meta-analysis demonstrated that pain reduction between baseline and follow-up was significantly larger in the orthoses (N = 167) than in the control groups in adults (N = 157; - 4.76, 95% CI [- 9.46, - 0.06], p0.05).
CONCLUSION
Due to heterogeneity in study designs, we cannot conclude that foot orthoses are useful for flexible flatfoot in children and adults. However, based on the meta-analysis orthoses might be useful in decreasing pain in adults. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Foot Orthoses; Flatfoot; Pain; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Bias
PubMed: 36611153
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-06044-8 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2023Paediatric flexible flatfoot (PFF) is a very common condition and a common concern among parents and various healthcare professionals. There is a multitude of... (Review)
Review
Paediatric flexible flatfoot (PFF) is a very common condition and a common concern among parents and various healthcare professionals. There is a multitude of conservative and surgical treatments, with foot orthoses (FO) being the first line of treatment due to their lack of contraindications and because the active participation of the child is not required, although the evidence supporting them is weak. It is not clear what the effect of FO is, nor when it is advisable to recommend them. PFF, if left untreated or uncorrected, could eventually cause problems in the foot itself or adjacent structures. It was necessary to update the existing information on the efficacy of FO as a conservative treatment for the reduction in signs and symptoms in patients with PFF, to know the best type of FO and the minimum time of use and to identify the diagnostic techniques most commonly used for PFF and the definition of PFF. A systematic review was carried out in the databases PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, Cochrane, SCOPUS and PEDro using the following strategy: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on child patients with PFF, compared to those treated with FO or not being treated, assessing the improvement of signs and symptoms of PFF. Studies in which subjects had neurological or systemic disease or had undergone surgery were excluded. Two of the authors independently assessed study quality. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and the systematic review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021240163. Of the 237 initial studies considered, 7 RCTs and CCTs published between 2017 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria, representing 679 participants with PFF aged 3-14 years. The interventions of the included studies differed in diagnostic criteria, types of FO and duration of treatment, among others. All articles conclude that FO are beneficial, although the results must be taken with caution due to the risk of bias of the included articles. There is evidence for the efficacy of FO as a treatment for PFF signs and symptoms. There is no treatment algorithm. There is no clear definition for PFF. There is no ideal type of FO, although all have in common the incorporation of a large internal longitudinal arch.
PubMed: 36832500
DOI: 10.3390/children10020371 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Oct 2021The aim of the present systematic literature review was to determine results and complications in subtalar arthroereisis for stage-2 adult-acquired flatfoot. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of the present systematic literature review was to determine results and complications in subtalar arthroereisis for stage-2 adult-acquired flatfoot.
METHOD
A search of the PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and Embase databases used MeSH terms "arthroereisis" AND "flatfoot" OR "adult-acquired flatfoot" OR "pes planovalgus" OR "pes planus". Two of the authors analyzed 125 articles. After reading titles and Abstracts, 105 articles were read in full text and their references were analyzed. Finally, 12 articles were selected and divided into 2 groups: isolated and associated arthroereisis.
RESULTS
Improvement in functional scores was greater in associated arthroereisis. Whether isolated or associated, arthroereisis achieved radiologic correction. However, the rate of complications was high, mainly concerning tarsal sinus pain.
CONCLUSION
Subtalar arthroereisis for stage-2 adult-acquired flatfoot is rarely performed in isolation. When it is associated to other procedures, good radiologic and clinical results can be expected.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Adult; Databases, Factual; Flatfoot; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Pain; Radiology; Subtalar Joint
PubMed: 34216843
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103002 -
Iranian Journal of Public Health Feb 2024Deviation of the foot from the normal posture affects the function of the foot and lower limb and causes lower limb injuries in normal people and athletes. Flat feet or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Deviation of the foot from the normal posture affects the function of the foot and lower limb and causes lower limb injuries in normal people and athletes. Flat feet or flatfoot deformity are usually associated with pain in the foot area and a decrease in the normal function of the foot, which can negatively affect the sports ability of athletes. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the abnormality of flat feet from training, exercise to therapeutic interventions.
METHODS
Articles were identified by searching five databases: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Gate & Pasteur from 2000 to 2022. The keywords were selected specifically and correctly and all the researches and articles related to the title of the article were searched and found. This research was also searched in Persian databases that this database, included: Irandoc, Mag Iran and Noormagz.
RESULTS
Finally, 30 studies met the criteria for entering this study, selected and used to conduct this study.
CONCLUSION
By using the results obtained in the research, which include corrective exercises and therapeutic interventions, especially the use of orthoses and various medical insoles, it is possible to help in the treatment and improvement of this anomaly.
PubMed: 38894830
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v53i2.14915 -
PloS One 2024Individuals with flatfoot have impaired proprioception owing to ligament laxity and impaired tendons, which can result in poor balance. Foot orthoses (FOs) have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Individuals with flatfoot have impaired proprioception owing to ligament laxity and impaired tendons, which can result in poor balance. Foot orthoses (FOs) have been reported to stimulate plantar mechanical receptors and are used to manage foot overpronation in individuals with flatfoot. However, the results of the use of FOs to improve balance are inconsistent. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and investigate the effects of FOs on balance in individuals with flatfoot. Electronic databases were searched for articles published before March 2023. Peer-reviewed journal studies that included adult participants with flexible flatfoot and reported the effects of FOs on balance were included and classified based on the study design: randomized control trials (RCT) and non-RCTs. Four RCT studies were retained, and their methodological quality was assessed (mean, 63.2%; range 47.3%-73.1%: high), as were three non-RCT studies (mean, 54.1%; range, 42.1%-68.4%: high). Meta-analysis was performed by calculating the effect size using the standardized mean differences between the control and FO conditions. Transverse-arch insoles immediately improved static balance after use. However, no immediate significant effect was found for medial archsupport FOs, cuboid-posting FOs, or University of California Berkeley Laboratory FOs during the study period (2-5 weeks) when compared with the controls. The transverse-arch insole is the most effective FO feature for improving static balance. However, the high heterogeneity between study protocols contributes to the lack of evidence for the effects of FO on balance in people with flatfoot.
Topics: Humans; Flatfoot; Foot; Foot Orthoses; Lower Extremity; Tarsal Bones; Postural Balance
PubMed: 38457399
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299446