|
Orthotics
|
|
Orthotics
|
|
Written by Dr. John Danchik, D.C., C.C.S.P., F.I.C.C.
|
|
Tuesday, 14 September 2004 21:57 |
|
Ankle sprains are common injuries, because the ankle is required to perform complex movements under high forces during normal walking. This can be particularly important for patients who participate in recreational activities and sports that require running and jumping. Proper evaluation and management in the early stages of an ankle sprain are very important in preventing chronic instabilities. With appropriate care, including orthotic support and exercise, significant improvements in function and stability can be achieved, even in patients with long-standing ankle problems.
Acute Care
Initial treatment of ankle sprains is the standard “PRICE” formula (Protection, Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation). Even with severe ankle sprains, using these procedures has been shown to speed recovery and return to sports (see Table 1). With the injured joint protected, patients can be encouraged to continue their activities (rather than using the now-discredited bed rest), with some restrictions.
In the case of ankle sprains, this entails the use of a lightweight, but laterally rigid brace, which protects against inversion and eversion. If a patient has been placed in a walking cast rather than a mobilizing brace, frequent prolonged stretching of the Achilles tendon must be performed in order to prevent shortening.
Conditioning and Exercise
During the initial acute stage, exercises for the damaged ankle are not appropriate. However, general full-body conditioning should be continued, using methods that do not place undue stress on the healing ankle (a stationary cycle with pedal straps is recommended).1 Additionally, vigorous exercise of the opposite ankle’s muscles (“cross education” or “cross-over”) has been shown to provide a healing stimulus and result in more rapid return to activities.2,3
As healing progresses, patients should begin to perform non-resistive active exercises concentrating on mobility of the injured ankle. Once the joint can be passively moved through a normal range, isotonic resistance exercising of the peroneal muscles using elastic tubing should be started.4 Initially, these exercises should be performed from a sitting position, with the heel resting on the floor, to reduce the forces on the ankle joint while still maintaining the functional alignment.
As strength builds, the patient should progress to standing during the exercises, in order to re-train the ankle support muscles in a closed-chain position. Further sport-specific exercises should be introduced to ensure that an athlete has all the strength and mobility required to participate in sports.
Proprioception
One reason some ankle injuries become chronic or recur appears to be the loss of the normal coordination of the muscles about the ankle, rather than simply their strength.5 An easy test is to have the patient stand on each leg, with the eyes open and then closed. Check to see if there is less capability of the injured leg. Practice of the one-legged stance, and use of “wobble” boards may be required to regain normal proprioceptive coordination. An athlete should be able to demonstrate a “stork stand” for at least one minute on the injured leg before being allowed to return to full competition.6
Orthotic Support
In many patients, custom-made orthotics can also be helpful in preventing future (and often more disabling) damage to the injured ankle. A careful evaluation of the biomechanics of the foot and ankle will find some patients who have underlying anatomical or functional problems. Particularly in the case of athletes, use of stabilizing, custom-made orthotics with good torsional rigidity should be considered. Orthotic support and control of inversion/eversion is necessary and highly recommended whenever there is a deficit in biomechanical function.7
Summary
Recent studies demonstrate that, even in severe ankle injuries, a well-informed conservative and active treatment approach will result in good outcomes. Using active rehabilitation concepts, most doctors of chiropractic can manage acute ankle sprain injuries very well. In many patients, custom-made orthotics will be needed to help prevent future problems and joint degeneration.
Dr. John J. Danchik is the seventh inductee to the American Chiropractic Association Sports Hall of Fame. He is the current chairperson of the United States Olympic Committee's Chiropractic Selection Program. He lectures extensively in the United States and abroad on current trends in sports chiropractic and rehabilitation. Dr. Danchik is an associate editor of the Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System.He has been in private practice in Massachusetts for 28 years. He can be reached by e-mail at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
References
1. Roy S, Irvin R. Sports Medicine: Prevention, Evaluation, Management and Rehabilitation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1983:394.
2. Stromberg BV. Contralateral therapy in upper extremity rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med 1988; 65:135-143.
3. Hortobagyi T, Lambert NJ, Hill JP. Greater cross education following training with muscle lengthening than shortening. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29:107-112.
4. Roy S, Irvin R. Sports Medicine: Prevention, Evaluation, Management and Rehabilitation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1983:397.
5. Lentell GL, Katzman LL, Walters MR. The relationship between muscle function and ankle stability. J Orth Sports Phy Ther 1990; 11:605-611.
6. Subotnick SI. Sports Medicine of the Lower Extremity. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989:284.
7. Heiser JR. Rehabilitation of lower extremity athletic injuries. Contemp Podiat Phys 1992; Aug 20-27.
|
|
|
Orthotics
|
|
Written by Dr. John Danchik, D.C., C.C.S.P., F.I.C.C.
|
|
Thursday, 08 July 2004 21:29 |
|
Foot pain can interfere significantly with normal activities, and severely limit participation in sports. Metatarsalgia is foot pain involving the metatarsal bones in the forefoot—the complaint of pain on the bottom of the ball of the foot.
Metatarsalgia may be due to overuse of the foot during sports, improper footwear,1 excessive weight, foot subluxations, or other factors. The underlying cause is often faulty foot mechanics; the most common problem is excessive pronation. Blake and Ferguson found that joint pain and capsulitis of the metatarsals were common foot problems reported by recreational walkers and hikers.2 The second and third metatarsophalangeal joints were the most frequently involved joints. Since the vast majority of foot problems in recreational walkers and hikers were unilateral, rather than bilateral, these researchers concluded that, “Structural anomalies and faulty biomechanics, i.e., limb length discrepancy or abnormal pronation, may be the cause or additional cause in many injuries.”
Arch Problems
The anterior transverse arch is located immediately behind the metatarsal heads.3 When non-weightbearing, the first and fifth metatarsal heads are most prominent, and initially bear the weight of the body during gait. As weightbearing progresses, pressure is distributed across the arch to the other three heads. As with all arches, the ligaments and connective tissues support the anterior transverse arch,4 not muscular strength.5 Arch problems will develop when supportive tissues are put under excessive stress—either from high loads for sudden, brief periods, or from more moderate, but repetitive stresses over longer periods. In most cases, it appears that chronic overstretching of the transverse ligaments is the underlying cause of metatarsal problems.6

Callus Formation
One sign of abnormal transverse arch biomechanics is callus build-up. Since plantar callosities form in response to sustained pressure patterns, they provide helpful clues regarding altered foot function. These are commonly seen in either the forefoot (under the metatarsal heads), or under the anterior aspect of the heel.7 This pattern (under the transverse arch and at each end of the medial longitudinal arch) has always been taken to indicate that most calluses are caused primarily by arch collapse and/or excessive pronation. A 1999 study confirmed that callus formation is closely associated with several specific “abnormal foot weightbearing patterns.” These are a lower medial arch with greater pronation, reduced dorsiflexion of the first metatarsal joint, and limited ankle dorsiflexion (due to calf muscle tightness).8 All three factors can contribute to abnormal biomechanics of the metatarsal arch.
Relief and Control
Helping a patient with pain at the metatarsal region requires a phased approach. Immediate care can reduce the acute pain and inflammation. Long-term control of the problem usually requires custom-made orthotics.
Acute relief. Any aggravating activity must stop, and shoes should be evaluated and changed, if necessary. A temporary metatarsal pad should be placed just proximal to the metatarsal heads to support the anterior transverse arch.9 This will relieve the weightbearing pressure on the sensitive metatarsophalangeal joints. Anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving modalities can be considered. Any subluxations, such as “dropped” or fixated metatarsal heads should be adjusted, as necessary. Multiple foot subluxations, arch collapse, and excessive pronation are frequently found, so the navicular and the cuboid must be carefully evaluated.
Permanent control. Patients should avoid shoes with a tight toe and forefoot region and reduce high heels to 1½ inches. These instructions must be followed for best results. Patients with tight Achilles tendons and diminished foot dorsiflexion should perform calf stretches. In order to improve foot biomechanics and provide permanent support for the transverse arch, most patients will need custom-made orthotics. Flexible orthotics are the most beneficial, especially for people who must be on their feet for many hours each day. The orthotics need to support all three arches of the foot and provide cushioning and shock absorption. Additional forefoot padding also appears to be very helpful. TAC
Dr. John J. Danchik is the seventh inductee to the American Chiropractic Association Sports Hall of Fame. He is the current chairperson of the United States Olympic Committee’s Chiropractic Selection Program. He lectures extensively in the United States and abroad on current trends in sports chiropractic and rehabilitation. Dr. Danchik is an associate editor of the Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System. He has been in private practice in Massachusetts for 27 years. He can be reached by e-mail at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
References
1. Jarboe NE, Quesada PM. The effects of cycling shoe stiffness on forefoot pressure. Foot Ankle Int 2003; 24(10):784-788. 2. Blake RL, Ferguson HJ. Walking and hiking injuries: a one year follow-up study. J Am Podiatr Med Assn 1993; 83:499-503. 3. Hoppenfeld S. Physical Examination of the Spine and Extremities. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1976:208. 4. Huang CK et al. Biomechanical evaluation of longitudinal arch stability. Foot & Ankle 1993; 14:353-357. 5. Basmajian JV, Stecko G. The role of muscles in arch support of the foot. J Bone Joint Surg 1963; 45A:1184-1190. 6. Reid DC. Sports Injury Assessment and Rehabilitation. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1992:129-184. 7. Magee DJ. Orthopedic Physical Assessment. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1987:323. 8. Bevans JS, Bowker P. Foot structure and function: etiological risk factors for callus formation in diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. The Foot 1999; 9:120-127. 9. Souza TA. Differential Diagnosis for the Chiropractor: Protocols and Algorithms. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Pubs, 1997:351.
|
|
Orthotics
|
|
Written by Dr. John Danchik, D.C., C.C.S.P., F.I.C.C.
|
|
Tuesday, 08 June 2004 20:11 |
|
The classic presentation of plantar fascitis is “a sharp heel pain that radiates along the bottom of the inside of the foot. The pain is often worse when getting out of bed in the morning.”1 This can occur in runners or other athletes who repetitively land on the foot. Another susceptible group is middle-aged persons who have spent much time on their feet. More rarely, the fascia becomes inflamed after a single traumatic event, such as landing wrong after a jump, or running a long hill.
The vast majority (95%) will respond to conservative care, and not require surgery.2 Proper treatment is necessary, however, to both ensure continued participation in sports and daily activities and avoid chronic damage. The plantar fascia is the major structure that supports and maintains the arched alignment of the foot.3 This aponeurosis functions as a “bowstring” to hold up the longitudinal arch.
Pathology Plantar fascitis develops when repetitive weight bearing stress irritates and inflames the tough connective tissues along the bottom of the foot. High levels of strain stimulate the aponeurosis to try to heal and strengthen. If the biomechanical strain continues, it overwhelms the body’s repair capacity, and the ligaments begin to fail. It is this tear/repair process that causes the chronic, variable symptoms that can eventually become unbearable in some patients.
Since the plantar fascia inserts into the base of the calcaneus, the chronic pull and inflammation can stimulate the deposition of calcium, resulting in a classic heel spur seen on a lateral radiograph. Unfortunately, there is no correlation between the presence of a heel spur and plantar fascitis; many heel spurs are clinically silent, and most cases of plantar fascitis do not demonstrate a calcaneal spur.4
Examination Biomechanical evaluation may find either excessive pronation or supination. The flatter, hyperpronating foot overstretches the bowstring function of the plantar fascia, while the high-arched, rigid foot places excessive tension on the plantar aponeurosis. In either case, it is the combination of improper foot biomechanics and excessive strain that causes the connective tissue to become inflamed. A careful assessment of the weight bearing alignment of the lower extremities is helpful, since many patients will have functional imbalances up the kinetic chain, into the pelvis and spine.
Direct palpation of the plantar fascia will demonstrate discrete painful areas, most commonly at the insertion on the antero-medial calcaneus.5 Fibrotic thickenings are frequently felt—these are remnants of the repetitive “tear and repair” process. With the foot relaxed, grasp the toes and gently pull them up into passive dorsiflexion. Since this maneuver stretches the irritated plantar aponeurosis, it is frequently quite painful, and is an obviously positive objective sign.
Conclusion Plantar fascitis usually responds well to focused, conservative treatment. Steroid injections and surgical release are seldom necessary, and are best avoided. One of the most important treatment methods is to reduce any tendency to pronate excessively. In addition to custom-made orthotics, runners should wear well-designed shoes that provide good heel stability.
The use of custom-made orthotics can prevent many overuse problems from developing in the lower extremities. Investigation of foot biomechanics is a good idea in all patients, but especially for those who are recreationally active.
Dr. John J. Danchik is the seventh inductee to the American Chiropractic Association Sports Hall of Fame. He is the current chairperson of the United States Olympic Committee’s Chiropractic Selection Program. He lectures extensively in the United States and abroad on current trends in sports chiropractic and rehabilitation. Dr. Danchik is an associate editor of the Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System. He has been in private practice in Massachusetts for 27 years. He can be reached by e-mail at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
|
|
|
Orthotics
|
|
Written by Dr. John Danchik, D.C., C.C.S.P., F.I.C.C.
|
|
Saturday, 03 April 2004 17:03 |
|
Why is there so much disagreement in the field of professional foot orthotics? When I read articles and research regarding support of the feet and lower extremities, I am constantly reminded that there are two major camps. Each side seems to make a strong argument. If I tell a podiatrist about the types of orthotics I find to be helpful to my patients, I am told that they are no good, and can’t possibly help any patient. Yet my own clinical experience finds the chiropractic types of orthotics to be very useful. In fact, I have had many successful results in patients who have previously attempted—unsuccessfully—to use the rigid type of orthotic with forefoot posting.
I am still amazed that some people can walk—much less be told they should run—in the traditional, rigid-control orthotics. And I still hear stories from my patients of a podiatrist (or even occasionally another chiropractor) who scoffs at the more flexible orthotics I have provided for them. The two ends of the orthotic spectrum are so different that it seems that someone must be right, thereby making the other doctor completely wrong. So the question is: Who or what is right, and who or what is wrong?
Here’s my assessment of the situation: As is true in many similar controversies concerning the human body, the answer depends on the patient’s needs and the training and focus of the practitioner. The two major approaches to providing orthotics are completely different systems which are not interchangeable, and cannot be compared within the other system. Both have their uses and value for patients.
Differing Viewpoints
Each approach has its own construct, or pattern, which is inherently valid. If you start within the conceptual framework of one orthotic philosophy, you are OK, as long as you stay within its confines. Each procedure begins with a different viewpoint, and continues in a rational, reasonable manner to an end result which is a very different-looking product. In other words, each approach makes sense within itself, but the end product (the orthotic) can’t be reasonably judged using the conceptual basis of the other construct. And, really, it is the final result—the patient outcome—which should be the final determinant. If the orthotic achieves the purpose for which it was designed, and is, itself, the cause of no subsequent problems, then the intervention can be considered successful, and the patient is the beneficiary!
Apples Aren’t Oranges
In Table 1, I have attempted to differentiate the two major orthotic constructs. It is evident that both approaches are inherently valid; each one makes sense when viewed from within its own pattern. To use the concepts of one to evaluate the products of another just won’t work. This viewpoint has allowed me to appreciate the differences and to understand better the rationales for the two very different procedures. To jump across columns or mix concepts just doesn’t work; that’s why you can’t send a weight-bearing image of a foot to a podiatric orthotic lab and expect to receive anything useful (and vice versa). Apples are apples and oranges are oranges; just don’t expect an apple to taste like an orange and you won’t be disappointed!
Table 1. Podiatric and chiropractic constructs for orthotic use
|
|
PODIATRIC
|
CHIROPRACTIC
|
|
Patient’s problem
|
Foot pain
|
Spinal problems
|
|
Biomechanical lesion
|
Poor foot function
|
Inefficient support of spine during stance and gait
|
|
Apparent cause
|
Abnormal foot biomechanics
|
Transmission of abnormal forces to pelvis and spine
|
|
Proposed fix
|
Control excessive pronation
|
Provide extremity support
|
|
Method
|
Maintain subtalar neutral
|
Improve arch/ankle function
|
|
Biomechanical concept
|
Forefoot/rearfoot imbalance
|
3 arches and heel support
|
|
Orthotic solution
|
Rigid control w/ forefoot & rearfoot posting
|
Flexible support for arches and shock absorption
(occasional rearfoot posting)
|
|
LABORATORY
|
|
|
|
Imaging needed
|
Foot in subtalar neutral (“ideal”) position
|
Foot in functional posture (when it’s providing support for the spine)
|
|
Provider input needed
|
Exact posting measurements
|
Special instructions (lift, etc.)
|
|
Lab procedure
|
Make negative image
|
Take measurements from weightbearing casting
|
|
PROBLEMS
|
|
|
|
Athletes
|
Uncomfortable—often need shock absorption
|
May need more torsional support (i.e,. StanceGuard)
|
|
Orthopedics
|
Problems with compensatory hypermobility
|
Adaptation process may require period of short-term exercise of feet
|
|
Neurological
|
Altered proprioceptive input inhibits postural control
|
Learning period/muscle retraining soreness
|
|
Provider time/expertise
|
Lengthy/high
|
Moderate/moderate
|
|
Patient cost
|
Expensive
|
Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. John J. Danchik is the seventh inductee to the American Chiropractic Association Sports Hall of Fame. He is the current chairperson of the United States Olympic Committee’s Chiropractic Selection Program, and lectures extensively in the United States and abroad on current trends in sports chiropractic and rehabilitation. Dr. Danchik is an associate editor of the Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System, and has been in private practice in Massachusetts for 27 years.
|
|
Orthotics
|
|
Written by Dr. John Danchik, D.C., C.C.S.P., F.I.C.C.
|
|
Saturday, 28 February 2004 00:00 |
|
Flatfoot (the absence of a medial longitudinal foot arch) is normally found during early human growth and development. During childhood, we all start out with little or no arch. Some people, however, never develop normal feet arches. This situation differs from the collapse of normal arches due to excessive loading and eventual plastic deformation. Are “normally” flattened feet a clinical problem? Are arch supports, special shoes, or orthotics necessary? Chiropractors need to understand the natural history of flatfeet and the clinical presentations associated with this condition.
In childhood, almost every foot has a large medial fat pad which slowly decreases during maturity, resulting in a more prominent medial longitudinal arch.1 A study of the developing arch in children2 has confirmed that 28% to 35% of school children have a flatfoot deformity, 80% of which are classified as “mild.” Without treatment, over 90% of these children will have normal arches by age ten.1,3 The remaining 10% will grow into adulthood without developing normal longitudinal arches.
Adults with flatfeet demonstrate several biomechanical inefficiencies in the foot and ankle, as well as a variety of gait abnormalities. The development of clinical problems is dependent on the levels of activity and the amount of repetitive stress which the feet must endure. Symptoms and associated pathology arise secondary to excessive pronation of the foot and ankle, and an inability to achieve a rigid foot at toe-off.
A 1988 study assessed the effects of arch supports on oxygen consumption in 20 subjects with flatfeet who complained of fatigue and “weariness.” 4 These subjects, between 18 and 38 years old, had no specific foot symptoms. Their heart rates, blood pressures, and walking oxygen consumption values were measured on a treadmill—first without, and then with arch-supporting orthotics. The results demonstrated that use of the orthotics significantly improved their gait efficiency, and decreased their oxygen consumption during normal walking.
Flexible or Rigid Arches?
It is important to differentiate a congenital, rigid flatfoot, from the normal, flexible flatfoot, since specialist referral is often necessary for the rigid condition. Here is a simple test to determine the existence of a rigid flatfoot (usually due to an osseous deformity, such as a tarsal coalition): If an arch is present when the patient is sitting with the foot dangling, or when standing up on the toes, then the flatfoot is “supple and is correctable with an arch support.”5 If the foot remains flat and rigid during this test, any attempt to lift up or support the arch will be painful and unsuccessful. In these rare cases, specialized treatment is required. Evaluation by a foot specialist is usually necessary to determine the underlying cause of a rigid flatfoot and to develop the proper care.

Recommendations for Adults with Flexible Flatfoot
-
Strengthen the lower leg muscles with home exercises (exercise tubing, scrunching up a towel with the toes).
-
Stretch the Achilles tendon regularly, which is found to be secondarily tight in many patients with flatfeet.
-
Insist on supportive, lacing shoes with a strong, stable heel counter.
-
If excessive pronation is present, support from flexible, custom-made orthotics is indicated.
Weight
Body weight is a major factor which can increase the levels of biomechanical stress that the feet must bear. Adults with flatfeet can decrease their potential for developing clinical problems by keeping their weight within recommended norms.
Orthotics
Orthotics provide support for the arches and decrease the tendency for excessive pronation. Fit patients who have flatfeet with comfortable orthotics at an early stage, before deformity develops and symptoms become intractable. Support from flexible, custom-made orthotics will encourage normal function of the foot and ankle. Further foot deformity can be prevented, along with reduction of abnormal kinetic chain stresses on the pelvis and spine.
Conclusion
Adults with flatfeet should be identified early in the examination process. The likelihood of foot biomechanics being involved in their musculoskeletal complaints is high. Corrective support for the arches is often necessary to obtain good clinical results, and custom-made orthotics should be considered from the start. Prevention of future foot, leg, and back problems requires the chiropractor to discuss the natural history of flatfeet with the patient. A review of the importance of maintaining normal body weight, good strength and flexibility, and the availability of orthotics will provide needed information. TAC
Dr. John J. Danchik is the seventh inductee to the American Chiropractic Association Sports Hall of Fame. He is the current chairperson of the United States Olympic Committee’s Chiropractic Selection Program. He lectures extensively in the United States and abroad on current trends in sports chiropractic and rehabilitation. Dr. Danchik is an associate editor to the Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System. He has been in private practice in Massachusetts for 26 years. He can be reached by e-mail at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
References
-
1.Kemp HC. Current Pediatric Diagnosis and Treatment. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange, 1984:614.
-
Notari MA. A study of the incidence of pedal pathology in children. Journ Am Podiatric Med Assn 1988; 78:518-521.
-
Wetton EA. The Harris and Beath footprint: interpretation and clinical value. Foot & Ankle 1992; 13:462-468.
-
Otman S, et al. Energy cost of walking with flatfeet. Prosthets and Orthots Int 1988; 12:73-76.
-
Hoppenfield S. Physical Examination of the Spine and Extremities. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1976:232.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 14 of 15 |
|
|
|