• 1

    Foulston J, Lord M, West S: Changes in plantar surface shape induced by corrective forefoot eversion. .Clin Biomech 5::229. ,1990. .

  • 2

    McPoil TG, Schuit D, Knecht HG: Comparison of three methods used to obtain a neutral plaster foot impression. .Phys Ther 69::448. ,1989. .

  • 3

    Cox RA, Ingrando CR, Park SC, et al: Comparison of forefoot varus measurements obtained from non-weightbearing, partial weightbearing, and full weightbearing orthotic casting techniques [abstract]. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 29::A5. ,1999. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Losito JM: “Impression Casting Techniques,” in Clinical Biomechanics of the Lower Extremity, ed by RL Valmassy, p 279, CV Mosby, St Louis, 1996..

  • 5

    Root ML, Weed JH, Orien WP: Neutral Position Casting Techniques, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles, 1971..

  • 6

    Philps JW: The Functional Foot Orthoses, 2nd Ed, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1992..

  • 7

    Anthony R: Manufacture and Use of the Functional Foot Orthoses, Karger, Basel, 1991..

  • 8

    Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH: Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles, 1977..

  • 9

    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. .Psychol Bull 86::420. ,1979. .

  • 10

    Valmassy RL: Advantages and disadvantages of various casting techniques. .JAPA 69::707. ,1979. .

  • 11

    Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB, Mlynarczyk JH: Proficiency of foot care specialists to place the rearfoot at subtalar neutral. .JAPMA 86::217. ,1996. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: The relationship between subtalar joint neutral position and rearfoot motion during walking. .Foot Ankle 15::141. ,1994. .

  • 13

    Nester CJ, Findlow A, Bowker P: Scientific approach to the axis of rotation at the midtarsal joint. .JAPMA 91::68. ,2001. .

  • 14

    Keenan AM: “Understanding Midtarsal Joint Function: Fact and Fallacy,” in Proceedings of the 17th Australian Podiatry Conference, ed by AM Keenan, HB Menz, p 107, Australian Podiatry Council, Melbourne, Australia, 1996..

  • 15

    Payne CB: The role of theory in understanding the midtarsal joint. .JAPMA 90::377. ,2000. .

  • 16

    Ross AS, Jones LJ: Non-weightbearing negative cast evaluation. .JAPA 72::634. ,1982. .

  • 17

    Olsen WR: “Orthotic Materials,” in Clinical Biomechanics of the Lower Extremity, ed by RL Valmassy, p 307, CV Mosby, St Louis, 1996..

Variability of Neutral-Position Casting of the Foot

Vivienne Chuter BPod(Hons)1, Craig Payne DipPod, MPH1, and Kathryn Miller BPod1
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Podiatry, School of Human Biosciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Restricted access

Neutral-position casting of the foot is used for the manufacture of functional foot orthoses, and an accurate cast is widely assumed to be a prerequisite for a good orthotic device. The primary aim of this study was to determine the variability of casting between inexperienced and experienced clinicians and the variability of one experienced clinician taking multiple casts. Ten inexperienced and ten experienced clinicians took a cast of the right foot of a single subject, and a single experienced clinician took ten casts of the same foot. The frontal plane forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship of each cast was determined, and no difference was found in the mean and variances among the three groups. The range of the forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship across all groups was from 10.0° everted to 6.5° inverted, indicating that there is a wide range in neutral-position casting of the foot. As outcome studies have reported the successful outcomes of functional foot orthoses, this wide variability may not necessarily be a problem. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 93(1): 1-5, 2003)

Corresponding author: Craig Payne, DipPod, MPH, Department of Podiatry, School of Human Biosciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia.