Methodological and statistical approaches for the assessment of foot shape using three-dimensional foot scanning: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to: (i) review and provide a narrative synthesis of three-dimensional (3D) foot surface scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocols, and (ii) develop a set of recommendations for standardising the reporting of 3D foot scanning approaches. METHODS: A systematic search of the SCOPUS, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases were conducted to identify papers reporting 3D foot scanning protocols and analysis techniques. To be included, studies were required to be published in English, have more than ten participants, and involve the use of static 3D surface scans of the foot. Papers were excluded if they reported two-dimensional footprints only, 3D scans that did not include the medial arch, dynamic scans, or derived foot data from a full body scan. RESULTS: The search yielded 78 relevant studies from 17 different countries. The available evidence showed a large variation in scanning protocols. The subcategories displaying the most variation included scanner specifications (model, type, accuracy, resolution, capture duration), scanning conditions (markers, weightbearing, number of scans), foot measurements and definitions used, and statistical analysis approaches. A 16-item checklist was developed to improve the consistency of reporting of future 3D scanning studies. CONCLUSION: 3D foot scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocol consistency and reporting has been lacking in the literature to date. Improved reporting of the included subcategories could assist in data pooling and facilitate collaboration between researchers. As a result, larger sample sizes and diversification of population groups could be obtained to vastly improve the quantification of foot shape and inform the development of orthotic and footwear interventions and products.

What are the Benefits and Risks Associated with Changing Foot Strike Pattern During Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Injury, Running Economy, and Biomechanics.

BACKGROUND: Running participation continues to increase. The ideal strike pattern during running is a controversial topic. Many coaches and therapists promote non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) running with a belief that it can treat and prevent injury, and improve running economy. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this review were to synthesise the evidence comparing NRFS with rearfoot strike (RFS) running patterns in relation to injury and running economy (primary aim), and biomechanics (secondary aim). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Consideration was given to within participant, between participant, retrospective, and prospective study designs. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were included. Limited evidence indicated that NRFS running is retrospectively associated with lower reported rates of mild (standard mean difference (SMD), 95% CI 3.25, 2.37-4.12), moderate (3.65, 2.71-4.59) and severe (0.93, 0.32-1.55) repetitive stress injury. Studies prospectively comparing injury risk between strike patterns are lacking. Limited evidence indicated that running economy did not differ between habitual RFS and habitual NRFS runners at slow (10.8-11.0 km/h), moderate (12.6-13.5 km/h), and fast (14.0-15.0 km/h) speeds, and was reduced in the immediate term when an NRFS-running pattern was imposed on habitual RFS runners at slow (10.8 km/h; SMD = - 1.67, - 2.82 to - 0.52) and moderate (12.6 km/h; - 1.26, - 2.42 to - 0.10) speeds. Key biomechanical findings, consistently including both comparison between habitual strike patterns and following immediate transition from RFS to NRFS running, indicated that NRFS running was associated with lower average and peak vertical loading rate (limited-moderate evidence; SMDs = 0.72-2.15); lower knee flexion range of motion (moderate-strong evidence; SMDs = 0.76-0.88); reduced patellofemoral joint stress (limited evidence; SMDs = 0.63-0.68); and greater peak internal ankle plantar flexor moment (limited evidence; SMDs = 0.73-1.33). CONCLUSION: The relationship between strike pattern and injury risk could not be determined, as current evidence is limited to retrospective findings. Considering the lack of evidence to support any improvements in running economy, combined with the associated shift in loading profile (i.e., greater ankle and plantarflexor loading) found in this review, changing strike pattern cannot be recommended for an uninjured RFS runner. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42015024523.

An anatomically-based masking protocol for the assessment of in-shoe plantar pressure measurement of the forefoot.

BACKGROUND: The area beneath the metatarsal heads is a common location of foot pain, which is often associated with high plantar pressures. Current plantar pressure assessment protocols focus mainly on the gross area of the forefoot with minimal attention paid to specific areas such as the metatarsal heads. The aim of this study was to develop and assess a new anatomically-based masking protocol that is clinically relevant to measure forefoot plantar pressure during shod conditions based on the anatomical positions of the metatarsal heads. METHODS: Initially, we developed a masking protocol to measure forefoot plantar pressure during shod conditions based on the anatomical positions of the metatarsal heads. This new masking protocol divided the forefoot into three sub-areas (proximal, beneath, and distal to the metatarsal heads) as determined by the position of each metatarsal head. Following development of the new masking protocol, we compared the new protocol against a traditional protocol, which defines the forefoot as between 51 and 81% of the foot length. To compare the two masking protocols, we tested two experimental conditions: (i) a control condition (i.e. no metatarsal pad), and (ii) a metatarsal pad condition. We then compared plantar pressure differences between the two experimental conditions for the two masking protocols. Participants for this component of the study included 36 community dwelling older adults (mean age 75.6 years ±5.4) with a history of forefoot pain. Forefoot plantar pressure data were measured while walking using the pedar®-X in-shoe system. Peak pressure, maximum force and contact area at the time of peak pressure were determined and results were compared between the two masking protocols. RESULTS: The traditional masking protocol showed that the metatarsal pad significantly decreased peak pressure and increased contact area in the forefoot area (i.e. within the entire mask area), but maximum force was not significantly different between the two conditions. In contrast, the newly developed anatomically-based masking protocol indicated that the metatarsal pad decreased peak plantar pressures distal to and beneath the metatarsal heads by increasing force and contact area proximal to the metatarsal heads. CONCLUSIONS: An anatomically-based masking protocol that is clinically relevant was developed to assess forefoot plantar pressure during shod conditions based on the anatomical positions of metatarsal heads. We propose that the new forefoot masking protocol will provide greater interpretability of forefoot plantar pressure data, which will aid clinicians and researchers for diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic purposes.

Evaluating the outcomes of a podiatry-led assessment service in a public hospital orthopaedic unit.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the demand for foot and ankle orthopaedic services in public health settings currently outweighs capacity. Introducing experienced allied health professionals into orthopaedic units to initiate the triage, assessment and management of patients has been proposed to help meet demand. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of introducing a podiatry-led assessment service in a public hospital orthopaedic unit. The outcomes of interest were determining: the proportion of patients discharged without requiring an orthopaedic appointment, agreement in diagnosis between the patient referral and the assessing podiatrist, the proportion of foot and ankle conditions presenting to the service, and the proportion of each condition to require an orthopaedic appointment. METHODS: This study audited the first 100 patients to receive an appointment at a new podiatry-led assessment service. The podiatrist triaged 'Category 3' referrals consisting of musculoskeletal foot and ankle conditions and appointments were provided for those considered likely to benefit from non-surgical management. Following assessment, patients were referred to an appropriate healthcare professional or were discharged. At the initial appointment or following a period of care, patients were discharged if non-surgical management was successful, surgery was not indicated, patients did not want surgery, and if patient's failed to attend their appointments. All other patients were referred for an orthopaedic consultation as indicated. RESULTS: Ninety-five of the 100 patients (69 females and 31 males; mean age 51.9, SD 16.4 years) attended their appointment at the podiatry-led assessment service. The 95 referrals contained a total of 107 diagnoses, of which the podiatrist agreed with the diagnosis stated on the referral in 56 cases (Kappa =0.49, SE = 0.05). Overall, 34 of the 100 patients were referred to an orthopaedic surgeon and the remaining 66 patients were discharged from the orthopaedic waiting list without requiring an orthopaedic consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients who had an appointment at the podiatry-led assessment service were discharged without requiring a surgical consultation. The introduction of a podiatry-led service assists with timely provision of patient care and ensures those with the greatest need for orthopaedic surgery have improved access to specialist care.