The “Rights” and “Wrongs” of Orthotic Selection
Orthotics
Written by Dr. John Danchik, D.C., C.C.S.P., F.I.C.C.   
Saturday, 03 April 2004 17:03 Read : 795 times

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. 

 

 


 
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
 
TAC Cover
TCA Cover
BL Cover

Click on image above
to view the
Digital Edition


Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

requestmagazinebutton

 

TAC Publications

The American Chiropractor Magazine: Digital Issues | Past Issues | Buyer's Guide

 

More Information

TAC Editorial: About | Circulation | Contact

Sales: Advertising | Subscriptions | Media Kit