1 / 5

Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis

Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. Rachel Majumdar, BSc (Hons); Philip Laxton, MSc; Anna Thuesen, BSc (Hons); Barry Richards, BSc (Hons); Anmin Liu, PhD; Francisca Arán-Ais, PhD; Enrique Montiel Parreño, PhD; Christopher J. Nester, PhD. Aim

singletond
Download Presentation

Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis Rachel Majumdar, BSc (Hons); Philip Laxton, MSc; Anna Thuesen, BSc (Hons); Barry Richards, BSc (Hons); Anmin Liu, PhD; Francisca Arán-Ais, PhD; Enrique Montiel Parreño, PhD; Christopher J. Nester, PhD

  2. Aim • Develop and evaluate new antipronation foot orthosis that addressed problems perceived by clinicians and users with existing foot orthoses. • Relevance • Prefabricated orthoses are in demand because of constraints on healthcare resources, but anecdotal observations indicate design shortcomings compared with custom-made foot orthoses.

  3. Method • Clinicians and users were engaged to develop user specification for orthosis. • Orthotic geometry and materials were developed using clinical reasoning. • Orthotic material properties were tested. • Ability of orthosis to reduce foot pronation was evaluated on 27 individuals.

  4. Results • Clinician and user concerns about prefabricated orthoses: • Shape and materials don’t sufficiently support foot. • Durability. • Hygiene. • New orthosis design: • Geometry adjusted to enable individual foot sizes. • Harder and more durable material selected. • New orthosis effect on pronation: • Reduced maximum rearfoot eversion during walking and running.

  5. Conclusion • Through structured process, orthotic design decisions were made that addressed specific concerns of clinicians and users. • New orthosis was proven to reduce rearfoot pronation.

More Related