-
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 -
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2018Flexible flat foot is a normal observation in typically developing children, however, some children with flat feet present with pain and impaired lower limb function.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Flexible flat foot is a normal observation in typically developing children, however, some children with flat feet present with pain and impaired lower limb function. The challenge for health professionals is to identify when foot posture is outside of expected findings and may warrant intervention. Diagnoses of flexible flat foot is often based on radiographic or clinical measures, yet the validity and reliability of these measures for a paediatric population is not clearly understood. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how paediatric foot posture is defined and measured within the literature, and if the psychometric properties of these measures support any given diagnoses.
METHODS
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, AMED, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were systematically searched in January 2017 for empirical studies where participants had diagnosed flexible flat foot and were aged 18 years or younger. Outcomes of interest were the foot posture measures and definitions used. Further articles were sought where cited in relation to the psychometric properties of the measures used.
RESULTS
Of the 1101 unique records identified by the searches, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 20 foot posture measures and 40 definitions of paediatric flexible flat foot. A further 18 citations were sought in relation to the psychometric properties of these measures. Three measures were deemed valid and reliable, the FPI-6 > + 6 for children aged three to 15 years, a Staheli arch index of > 1.07 for children aged three to six and ≥ 1.28 for children six to nine, and a Chippaux-Smirak index of > 62.7% in three to seven year olds, > 59% in six to nine year olds and ≥ 40% for children aged nine to 16 years. No further measures were found to be valid for the paediatric population.
CONCLUSION
No universally accepted criteria for diagnosing paediatric flat foot was found within existing literature, and psychometric data for foot posture measures and definitions used was limited. The outcomes of this review indicate that the FPI - 6, Staheli arch index or Chippaux-Smirak index should be the preferred method of paediatric foot posture measurement in future research.
Topics: Anthropometry; Child; Child Development; Flatfoot; Foot; Humans; Posture; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design
PubMed: 29854006
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-018-0264-3 -
PloS One 2018Flexible pes planus (flat feet) in children is a common presenting condition in clinical practice due to concerns amongst parents and caregivers. While Foot Orthoses... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Flexible pes planus (flat feet) in children is a common presenting condition in clinical practice due to concerns amongst parents and caregivers. While Foot Orthoses (FOs) are a popular intervention, their effectiveness remains unclear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to update the current evidence base for the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus.
METHODS
A systematic search of electronic databases (Cochrane, Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINHAL, SportDiscus, Scopus and PEDro) was conducted from January 2011 to July 2017. Studies of children (0-18 years) diagnosed with flexible pes planus and intervention to be any type of Foot Orthoses (FOs) were included. This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. McMaster critical review form for quantitative studies, was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a descriptive synthesis of the included studies was undertaken.
RESULTS
Out of 606 articles identified, 11 studies (three RCTs; two case-controls; five case-series and one single case study) met the inclusion criteria. A diverse range of pre-fabricated and customised FOs were utilised and effectiveness measured through a plethora of outcomes. Summarised findings from the heterogeneous evidence base indicated that FOs may have a positive impact across a range of outcomes including pain, foot posture, gait, function and structural and kinetic measures. Despite these consistent positive outcomes reported in several studies, the current evidence base lacks clarity and uniformity in terms of diagnostic criteria, interventions delivered and outcomes measured for paediatric flexible pes planus.
CONCLUSION
There continues to remain uncertainty on the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus. Despite a number of methodological limitations, FOs show potential as a treatment method for children with flexible pes planus.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017057310.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29451921
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193060 -
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 -
Clinical Obesity Apr 2015Children with obesity report musculoskeletal pain more than normal-weight children; this may be linked with literature suggesting children with obesity have higher... (Review)
Review
Children with obesity report musculoskeletal pain more than normal-weight children; this may be linked with literature suggesting children with obesity have higher prevalence of pes planus (flatfoot). To further elucidate whether this relation occurs, we conducted a systematic literature review on the co-occurrence of pes planus and paediatric obesity. Empirical articles published until September 2013 were obtained through an electronic search of MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus; included articles examined the association between body weight and pes planus in children. Thirteen cross-sectional studies of varied designs were identified. Methods used to diagnose pes planus varied between studies: imaging modalities, anthropometric measurements and clinical examination. Across all studies, pes planus prevalence among children with obesity ranged widely from 14 to 67%. Nearly all studies indicated increasing pes planus in children with increasing weight. No studies evaluated pain/complications related to pes planus. Our review suggests increased prevalence of pes planus among children with obesity or increasing weight status. Because of differing methodologies, lack of consensus regarding the pes planus definition, the dearth of investigation into pain/complications and the few existing studies, more research is needed to determine a relation between children's body weight, pes planus and associated effects on pain and function.
Topics: Age Factors; Comorbidity; Flatfoot; Foot; Humans; Pain; Pediatric Obesity; Prevalence
PubMed: 25808780
DOI: 10.1111/cob.12091