Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for
- Author or Editor: S Ross x
- Refine by access: All Content x
Background: The biomechanics of the foot and leg are responsible for shock absorption during human gait. Lack of shock absorption is known to be a key component of knee pain. This study compares a new model of shoe sole with a built-in modification intended to absorb shock with a traditional sole shoe to examine whether shoe design modifications can help alleviate knee pain.
Methods: A double-blind randomized controlled study was performed. Fifty-two adults with overuse symptoms of knee pain, either unilateral or bilateral, were enrolled and randomly assigned to use the intervention sole or the traditional sole shoes. For 5 weeks, participants wore either the shoe with the intervention sole or the shoe with the traditional sole, rating their knee pain on a 10-point visual analog scale at study onset, midway, and study completion.
Results: After 5 weeks, participants using the intervention sole shoe reported an average reduction in knee pain of 85%, significantly better than participants using the traditional sole shoe (P < .001), whose average pain scores increased. Positive effects on back and foot pain were also observed in those with the intervention sole shoe compared with the traditional sole shoe.
Conclusions: The intervention shock-absorbing sole represents an approach to midsole and outsole construction that can potentially increase shock absorption and decrease knee pain during prolonged standing and walking.
Background
Isolated medial cuneiform fracture is a rare but diagnostically challenging condition. Diagnostic delay in these cases may lead to delays in ideal treatment approaches and prolonged symptoms. An understanding of clinical presentation is needed to expedite diagnosis, facilitate decision making, and guide treatment approach.
Methods
Case studies/series were searched in four databases until September 2019. Included studies had participants with a history of traumatic closed medial cuneiform fracture. Studies were excluded if the medial cuneiform fractures were open fractures, associated with multitrauma, or associated with dislocation/Lisfranc injury. Three blinded reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies, and a qualitative synthesis was performed.
Results
Ten studies comprising 15 patients were identified. Mean ± SD patient age was 38.0 ± 12.8 years, with 86.7% of reported participants being men. The overall methodological quality was moderate to high, and reporting of the patient selection criteria was poor overall. The most commonly reported clinical symptoms were localized tenderness (60.0%) and edema (53.3%). Direct blow was the most common inciting trauma (46.2%), followed by axial load (30.8%) and avulsion injuries (23.1%). Baseline radiographs were occult in 72.7% of patients; magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography were the most common diagnostic modalities. Mean ± SD diagnostic delay was 64.7 ± 89.6 days. Conservative management was pursued in 54.5% of patients, with reported resolution of symptoms in 3 to 6 months. Surgical intervention occurred in 45.5% of patients and resulted in functional restoration in 3 to 6 months in all but one patient.
Conclusions
Initial radiographs for isolated medial cuneiform fractures are frequently occult. Due to expedience and relatively low cost, radiographs are still a viable first-line imaging modality. If clinical concern remains, magnetic resonance imaging may be pursued to minimize diagnostic delay. Conservative management is a viable treatment method, with expected return to full function in 3 to 6 months.
