Sachithanandam V, Joseph B: The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot: a survey of 1846 skeletally mature persons. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 77::254. ,1995. .
Brewerton D, Sandifer P, Sweetnam D: “Idiopathic” pes cavus: an investigation into its aetiology. .BMJ 2::659. ,1963. .
Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, et al: The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. .Clin Biomech 20::877. ,2005. .
Dwyer FC: The present status of the problem of pes cavus. .Clin Orthop Relat Res 106::254. ,1975. .
Jahss MH: Evaluation of the cavus foot for orthopedic treatment. .Clin Orthop Relat Res 181::52. ,1983. .
Redmond A, Lumb PS, Landorf K: Effect of cast and noncast foot orthoses on plantar pressure and force during normal gait. .JAPMA 90::441. ,2000. .
Manoli A, Graham B: The subtle cavus foot, “the underpronator.”. Foot Ankle Int 26::256. ,2005. .
Statler TK, Tullis BL: Pes cavus. .JAPMA 95::42. ,2005. .
Menz HB, Munteanu SE: Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 35::479. ,2005. .
Burns J, Crosbie J: Weight bearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion in idiopathic pes cavus compared to normal and pes planus feet. .The Foot 15::91. ,2005. .
Redmond A, Crosbie J, Ouvrier R: Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index (FPI). .Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21::89. ,2006. .
Yates B, White S: The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. .Am J Sports Med 32::772. ,2004. .
Burns J, Keenan A-M, Redmond A: Foot type and overuse injury in triathletes. .JAPMA 95::235. ,2005. .
Burns J: The assessment and management of a patient with painful idiopathic pes cavus. .Australas J Podiatr Med 38::49. ,2004. .
Lewis G, Tan T, Shiue YS: Characterization of the performance of shoe insert materials. .JAPMA 81::418. ,1991. .
Caselli MA, Levitz SJ, Clark N, et al: Comparison of Viscoped and PORON for painful submetatarsal hyperkeratotic lesions. .JAPMA 87::6. ,1997. .
Leber C, Evanski PM: A comparison of shoe insole materials in plantar pressure relief. .Prosthet Orthot Int 10::135. ,1986. .
Landorf KB, Keenan A-M: An evaluation of two foot-specific, health-related quality-of-life measuring instruments. .Foot Ankle Int 23::538. ,2002. .
Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S, et al: Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. .JAPMA 88::419. ,1998. .
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. .Med Care 30::473. ,1992. .
Boyd LA, Bontrager EL, Mulroy SJ, et al: The reliability and validity of the novel Pedar system of in-shoe pressure measurement during free ambulation. .Gait Posture 5::165. ,1997. .
Murphy DF, Beynnon BD, Michelson JD, et al: Efficacy of plantar loading parameters during gait in terms of reliability, variability, effect of gender and relationship between contact area and plantar pressure. .Foot Ankle Int 26::171. ,2005. .
Hennig EM, Rosenbaum D: Pressure distribution patterns under the feet of children in comparison with adults. .Foot Ankle Int 11::306. ,1991. .
Altman DG: Statistics and ethics in medical research: III. How large a sample?. BMJ 281::1336. ,1980. .
Vickers AJ, Altman DG: Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. .BMJ 323::1123. ,2001. .
Greenhalgh T: How to read a paper: statistics for the non-statistician: II. “Significant” relations and their pitfalls. .BMJ 315::422. ,1997. .
Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Dunne MP: Health-related quality of life following podiatric surgery. .JAPMA 91::164. ,2001. .
Lynch DM, Goforth WP, Martin JE, et al: Conservative treatment of plantar fasciitis: a prospective study. .JAPMA 88::375. ,1998. .
Chalmers AC, Busby C, Goyert J, et al: Metatarsalgia and rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, single blind, sequential trial comparing 2 types of foot orthoses and supportive shoes. .J Rheumatol 27::1643. ,2000. .
Powell M, Seid M, Szer IS: Efficacy of custom foot orthotics in improving pain and functional status in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomized trial. .J Rheumatol 32::943. ,2005. .
Turlik MA, Donatelli TJ, Veremis MG: A comparison of shoe inserts in relieving mechanical heel pain. .The Foot 9::84. ,1999. .
Torkki M, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, et al: Surgery vs orthosis vs watchful waiting for hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial. .JAMA 285::2474. ,2001. .
Woodburn J, Barker S, Helliwell PS: A randomized controlled trial of foot orthoses in rheumatoid arthritis. .J Rheumatol 29::1377. ,2002. .
Davies S, Gibby O, Phillips C, et al: The health status of diabetic patients receiving orthotic therapy. .Qual Life Res 9::233. ,2000. .
Patients with a cavus or high-arched foot frequently experience foot pain, which can lead to significant limitation in function. Custom foot orthoses are widely prescribed to treat cavus foot pain. However, no clear guidelines for their construction exist, and there is limited evidence of their efficacy. In a randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled trial, the effect of custom foot orthoses on foot pain, function, quality of life, and plantar pressure loading in people with a cavus foot type was investigated. One hundred fifty-four participants with chronic musculoskeletal foot pain and bilateral cavus feet were randomly assigned to a treatment group receiving custom foot orthoses (n = 75) or to a control group receiving simple sham insoles (n = 79). At 3 months, 99% of the participants provided follow-up data using the Foot Health Status Questionnaire. Foot pain scores improved more with custom foot orthoses than with the control (difference, 8.3 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 15.3 points; P = .022). Function scores also improved more with custom foot orthoses than with the control (difference, 9.5 points; 95% CI, 2.9 to 16.1 points; P = .005). Quality-of-life data favored custom foot orthoses, although differences reached statistical significance only for physical functioning (difference, 7.0 points; 95% CI, 1.9 to 12.1 points; P = .008). Plantar pressure improved considerably more with custom foot orthoses than with the control for all regions of the foot (difference, −3.0 N · s/cm2; 95% CI, −3.7 to −2.4 N · s/cm2; P < .001). In conclusion, custom foot orthoses are more effective than a control for the treatment of cavus foot pain and its associated limitation in function. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96(3): 205–211, 2006)