Table 3.
Outcome measures Skeletal Geometry
| Outcome | Study | Condition | Group | Baseline Mean (SD ±/-) | Final Mean (SD ±/-) | Statistical Result (Significant values given in bold) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrective Therapeutic Footwear | ||||||
| 3D Laser scanning | ||||||
| Bean shaped ratio | Chen et al. (2015) [16] | CTEV | Group 1 CTF and DB | N/A | 0.29 (0.27-0.30)a | One-way MANOVA: p=0.002 |
| Group 2 DB and Own footwear | N/A | 0.31 (0.29-0.33) a | Post hoc: | |||
| Group 3 vs. 1 p<0.01 | ||||||
| Group 3 FAS and CTF | N/A | 0.27 (0.25-0.28) a | Group 3 vs. 2 p<0.01 | | |||
| Bimalleolar angle (°) | Chen et al. (2015) [16] | CTEV | Group 1 CTF and DB | N/A | 75.59 (73.98-77.21) a | One-way MANOVA: p=0.032 |
| Group 2 DB and Own footwear | N/A | 72.98 (69.03-6.92) a | Post hoc: | |||
| Group 2 vs. 3 p<0.01 | | ||||||
| Group 3 FAS and CTF | N/A | 77.55 (75.57-79.53) a | ||||
| Radiographic (Anterior-Posterior view) | ||||||
| Talo calcaneal angle (°) | Kanatli et al. (2016) [12] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 34d (22-53) b | 23d (12-37) b | Wilcoxon signed rank: |
| Group1 p=0.002; Group 2 p=0.003 | ||||||
| Group 2 Own footwear | 33d (20-45) b | 30d (13-37) b | Mann Whitney U: | |||
| Group 1 vs.2 p=0.19 | ||||||
| Wenger et al. (1989) [37] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 36.2 (1.2) c | 29.4 (0.74) c | One Way ANOVA: p>0.5 | |
| Group 2 SLF | 36.3 (0.99) c | 31.5 (1.2) c | ||||
| Group 3 CTF with Helfet heel cup | 37.1 (0.84) c | 30 (0.77) c | ||||
| Group 4 SLF with UCBL | 36.8 (0.97) c | 30.1 (0.82) c | ||||
| Radiographic (Lateral view) | ||||||
| Calcaneal pitch (°) | Kanatli et al. (2016) [12] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 12d (2-20) b | 15d (4-20) b | Wilcoxon signed rank: |
| Group 1 p=0.002; | ||||||
| Group 2 p=0.001 | ||||||
| Group 2 Own footwear | 10d (1-16) b | 14d (4-22) b | Mann Whitney U: | |||
| Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.18 | ||||||
| Talar 1st metatarsal angle (°) | Kanatli et al. (2016) [12] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 16d (7-29) b | 10d (0-26) b | Wilcoxon signed rank: |
| Group 1 p=0.001; | ||||||
| Group 2 p=0.001 | ||||||
| Group 2 Own footwear | 18.4d (6-35) b | 9.3d (0-34) b |
Mann Whitney U: Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.72 |
|||
| Wenger et al. (1989) [37] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 19.1 (0.75) c | 11.7 (0.84) c | One-way ANOVA: p>0.5 | |
| Group 2 SLF | 16.7 (0.87) c | 11.8 (0.91) c | ||||
| Group 3 CTF with Helfet heel cup | 16.8 (0.76) c | 11.5 (0.67) c | ||||
| Group 4 SLF with UCBL | 19.7 (0.83) c | 11.3 (0.98) c | ||||
| Talo calcaneal angle (°) | Kanatli et al. (2016) [12] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 46d (27-56) b | 44d (32-57) b | Wilcoxon signed rank: |
| Group1 p=0.736; | ||||||
| Group 2 p=0.113 | ||||||
| Group 2 Own footwear | 46d (34-55) b | 43d (32-51) b | Mann Whitney U: | |||
| Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.24 | ||||||
| Talar horizontal angle (°) | Kanatli et al. (2016) [12] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 34d (16-49) b | 29d (19-42) b | Wilcoxon signed rank: |
| Group 1 p=0.003; | ||||||
| Group 2 p=0.001 | ||||||
| Group 2 Own footwear | 35d (21-52) b | 27d (21-44) b | Mann Whitney U: | |||
| Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.09 | ||||||
| Wenger et al. (1989) [37] | Mobile pes planus | Group 1 CTF | 40.5 (0.70) c | 34 (0.66) c | One Way ANOVA: p>0.4 | |
| Group 2 SLF | 39.8 (0.71) c | 34.7 (0.73) c | ||||
| Group 3 CTF with Helfet heel cup | 39.5 (0.6) c | 34.7 (0.61) c | ||||
| Group 4 SLF with UCBL | 41.8 (0.78) c | 34.2 (0.84) c | ||||
| Functional Stability Therapeutic Footwear | ||||||
| Radiographic (Anterior-Posterior view) | ||||||
| Talocalcaneal angle (°) | Basta et al. (1977) [39] | Symptomatic mobile pes planus | Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF | -4.2 | No Statistical test for significance performed | |
| Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | -1 | |||||
| Group2 Change from BF with FSTF | -3.8 | |||||
| Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP | -1.5 | |||||
| Group 3 -6 | No Data Reported | No Data Reported | ||||
| Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF | -4.1 | |||||
| Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | -1.4 | |||||
| Radiographic (Lateral view) | ||||||
| Calcaneal pitch (°) | Basta et al. (1977) [39] | Symptomatic mobile pes planus | Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF | 1.8 | No Statistical test for significance performed | |
| Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | 2.1 | |||||
| Group2 Change from BF with FSTF | 1.8 | |||||
| Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP | 2 | |||||
| Group 3 -6 | No Data Reported | No Data Reported | ||||
| Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF | 2.1 | |||||
| Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | 1.55 | |||||
| Longitudinal arch angle (°) | Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF | -2.75 | No Statistical test for significance performed | |||
| Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | -0.9 | |||||
| Group2 Change from BF with FSTF | -2.5 | |||||
| Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | -0.9 | |||||
| Group 3 -6 | No Data Reported | No Data Reported | ||||
| Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF | -2.6 | |||||
| Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP | -1.2 | |||||
| Talo calcaneal angle (°) | Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF | 0.9 | No Statistical test for significance performed | |||
| Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | -1.35 | |||||
| Group2 Change from BF with FSTF | 0.7 | |||||
| Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP | -1.25 | |||||
| Group 3 -6 | No Data Reported | No Data Reported | ||||
| Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF | 0.8 | |||||
| Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP | -1.3 | |||||
| Functional Lift Therapeutic Footwear | ||||||
| 3D stereovideographic | ||||||
| Anteroposterior shift of sacral 1 (mm) | Zabjek et al. (2001) [44] | Idiopathic scoliosis | BF vs. FLTF | 12 (19) | 7 (5) | Paired t test: p>0.05 |
| Anteroposterior shift thoracic 1 (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | 32 (20) | 7 (7) | p<0.05 | ||
| Anteroposterior shift shoulders/pelvis (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | 20 (18) | 6 (5) | p<0.05 | ||
| Diff in height left-right tibia (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | -3 (5) | 11 (4) | p<0.05 | ||
| Diff in height left-right trochanter (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | -10 (10) | 15 (6) | p<0.05 | ||
| Kyphosis (%) | BF vs. FLTF | 7 (3) | 0.6 (0.6) | p>0.05 | ||
| Lateral shift sacral 1 (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | 1 (10) | 9 (6) | p<0.05 | ||
| Lateral shift shoulder/pelvis (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | 12 (10) | 4 (3) | p>0.05 | ||
| Lateral shift thoracic 1 (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | 13 (15) | 9 (7) | p>0.05 | ||
| Lordosis (%) | BF vs. FLTF | 4 (2) | 0.5 (0.5) | p>0.05 | ||
| Pelvic rotation (°) | BF vs. FLTF | 0.4 (4) | 2 (2) | p>0.05 | ||
| Pelvic tilt (°) | BF vs. FLTF | 3 (1) | 3 (1) | p<0.05 | ||
| Rotation shoulder/pelvis (°) | BF vs. FLTF | 1 (4) | 1 (1) | p>0.05 | ||
| Shoulder rotation (°) | BF vs. FLTF | 1 (4) | 2 (2) | p>0.05 | ||
| Shoulder tilt (°) | BF vs. FLTF | 0.4 (2) | 0.8 (0.6) | p<0.05 | ||
| Tilt shoulder/pelvis (°) | BF vs. FLTF | -2 (2) | 3 (2) | p<0.05 | ||
| Vertical height of sacral 1 (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | 897 (84) | 5 (3) | p<0.05 | ||
| Vertical height of thoracic 1 (mm) | BF vs. FLTF | 1279 (117) | 6 (3) | p<0.05 | ||
| Version left iliac bone (°) | BF vs. FLTF | -11 (4) | 1 (1) | p<0.05 | ||
| Version right iliac bone (°) | BF vs. FLTF | -10 (4) | 2 (1) | p<0.05 | ||
| Diff in version right and left iliac (°) | BF vs. FLTF | -0.5 (2) | 2 (1) | p<0.05 | ||
BF Barefoot, CNP Customised Navicular Pad, CTEV Congenital Talipes Equino Varus, CTF Corrective Therapeutic Footwear, DB Denis Brown Barred Night Boot, FAS Forefoot Abduct Night Shoe, FLTF Functional Lift Therapeutic Footwear, N/A Not Applicable, SLF Standard Last Footwear, SSF Standard Sole Footwear, UCBL University of California Biomechanics Laboratory, a95% Confidence Interval, bMin-Max, cStandard Error, dMedian,