Picking the right orthotic for your tennis shoes- custom or over the counter?

[normanolup]

Orthotics have been a “catch all” for treatment of an array of orthopedic sports medicine ailments from the toes to the cranium. With the vast array of OTC (over the counter) and custom foot orthotics (CFO) being marketed it is difficult for people to piece through marketing to find the optimal device for her or him given the unique demands each person imparts on the body during their daily activities

The standard tennis shoe insert is a flexible liner which does not provide any rotational or motion control (1) therefore any excessive forces on the lower extremity will be borne by the shoe and the body’s locomotor system when using a simple, factory insole. While playing tennis, the single limb can be consistently responsible for 6 times the players body weight while making unique movements, this has lead players to seek orthoses out for prophylactic as well as therapeutic purposes (1,9)

There is constant debate over the merits of custom orthotics and OTC. There are countless points of view as to the most effective orthotic design and method of method of action. There are several reasons for this lack of consensus over CFO including inter-practitioner variability when casting the device, method of capture of the foot, method of measuring the foot, device materials, and variability of the human foot.

Despite the myriad of options available, potential pitfalls and discrepancies in research dealing with foot orthotics, patient satisfaction remains high with these devices. A recent study of 275 patients prescribed custom foot orthotics found high patient satisfaction with only 9% of respondents reporting no symptom relief (29). Anecdotally, both custom and OTC devices in my clinic have provided patients good pain relief irrespective of casting techniques, brands, and materials used. Ultimately, it is up to the preference of patient and practitioner to find the right device for the specific indication and situation.

Ferber and Hettinga tested 3 commercially available OTC orthotics’ effects on plantar fascia strain using retroflective markers. They found that all 3 brands did decrease plantar fascial strain, however they found one brand (Power step) also had a significant impact on decreasing rearfoot eversion(13). Other studies have shown that the difference in plantar pressure reduction is not significant between CFO and OTC. Redmund et al found no statistical significance in plantar pressure reduction across 15 flatfooted individuals that were dispensed a semi rigid custom or semi rigid OTC orthotic, however this study was performed after only 14 days, which did not take into consideration the wear characteristics of the OTC vs custom device over a longer period of time (26).

Recomendations :

1. If an OTC orthotic is to be used , we recommend Powerstep, Spenco, or Superfeet as these have been tested the most clinically and have the best results in our clinic
2. Custom orthotics are to Cadillac as OTC are to Chevy- they will both get you where you need to go, one will just do it more comfortably.
3. Full length orthotics are best to prevent sliding
4. Top covers should be made of a material with high coefficient of friction to prevent sliding- ie. Spenco, EVA, Poron.
5. OTC orthotics will last about 6-8 months depending on use and patient weight- more activity, less time to change. Custom will last 1-5 years depending on thickness, patient weight and activity.
6. Make sure the orthotic matches the arch height, if the arch falls while the orthotic is in the shoe, it is worthless.

Disclosure: The author received no compensation from any device company in the preparation of this article.

References:

1. Branthwaite, HR, Payton CJ, Chockalingam N. The effect of simple insoles on three dimensional foot motion during normal walking. Clinical Biomechanics. 19(2004) 972-977
2. Chevalier T, Chockalingam N. Effets of foot Orthoses: How important is the practicioner? Gait and Posture. 35(2012) 383-388
3. Ki SW, Leung AKL, Li ANM. Comparison of plantar pressure distribution patterns between foot orthoses provided by the CAD-CAM and foam impression methods. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2008;(3):356-362
4. Roberts A, Wales J, Smith H, Sampson CJ, Jones P, James M. A Randomised controlled trial of laser scanning and casting for the constructions of ankle-foot orthoses. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2016. 40(2) 253-261
5. Kappel-Bargas A, Woolf RD, Cornwall MW, McPoll TG. The Windlass mechanism during normal walking and passive first metatarsophalangeal joint extension. Clinical Biomechanics. 1998.13(3) 190-194
6. Groner C. Trends and techniques in materials , part I ; O &P. Lower Extremity Review. Janurary 2013
7. Groner C. Trends in materials , part II: Foot Orthoses. Lower Extremity Review. Feburary 2013
8. Kennedy S. MATERIAL CHOICES IN FOOT ORTHOTIC DESIGN. The O &P EDGE. Feburary 2008.
9. Bouche RT. Racquet sports: tennis, badminton, squash, racquestball, and handball. Athletic Footwear and Orthoses in Sports Medicine. Pp 215-223 .2010. Springer New York.
10. Ibrahim M, Hilaly RE, Morsy A. A pilot study to assess the effectiveness of orthotic insoles on the reduction of plantar soft tissue strain. Clinical Biomechanics. 28(2013)68-72
11. Hirano T, McCullough MBA, Kitaoka HB, Ikoma K. Effects of foot orthoses on the work of friction of the posterior tibial tendon. Clinical Biomechanics. 24(2009) 776-780
12. McCormick CJ, Bonanno DR, Landorf KB. The effect of customized and sham foot orthoses on plantar pressures. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 20136:19
13. Ferber R, Hettinga BA. A comparison of different over-the-counterfoot orthotic devices on multi-segment foot biomechanics. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2016. 40(6) 675-681.
14. Aminian G, Safaeepour Z, Farhoodi M, Pezeshk AF, Saeedi H, Majddoleslam B. The effect of prefabricated and proprioceptive foot orthoses on plantar pressure distribution in patients with flexible flatfoot during walking. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2012. 33(3) 227-232.
15. Redmond AC, Landorf KB and Keenan A-M. Contoured, pre- fabricated foot orthoses demonstrate comparable mechanical properties to contoured, customised foot orthoses: a plantar pressure study. J Foot Ankle Res 2009; 2: 20.
16. Bus SA, Ulbrecht JS and Cavanagh PR. Pressure relief
    and load redistribution by custom-made insoles in diabetic patients with neuropathy and foot deformity. Clin Biomech 2004; 19: 629–638
17. Chuter V, Payne C, Miller K. Variability of neutral-position casting of the foot. JAPMA, 93(1):1-5, 2003.
18. McPoil T, Cornwall MW. Relationship between neutral subtalar joint position and pattern of rearfoot motion during walking. Foot Ankle Intl 15(3):141-145, 1994.
19. Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB. Rearfoot inversion/eversion during gait relative to the subtalar joint neutral position. Foot Ankle Intl.17(7):406-412, 1996
20. Kirby KA. Are Root Biomechanics Dying? Podiatry Today. 22(4) 58-69. 2009.
21. Kirby KA. Midtarsal joint locking: Real or Imaginary?-Part I & II. Precision Intricast Newsletter, Precision Intricast, Payson, Arizona, June & July 2008.
22. Nigg BM. The role of impact forces and foot pronation: a new paradigm. Clin J Sports Med 11(1):2-9, 2001.
23. McPoil TG, Hunt GC. Evaluation and Management of Foot and Ankle Disorders : Present Problems and Future Directions. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy.21(6) 1995
24. Topp KS, Boyd BS. Structure and Biomechanics of Peripheral Nerves: Nerve Responses to Physical Stresses and Implications for Physical Therapist Practice. Physical Therapy. 86(1) 2006.
25. Mueller MJ, Maluf KS. Tissue Adaptation to Physical Stress: A Proposed “ Physical Stress Theory” to Guide Physical Therapist Practice, Education , and Research. Physical Therapy. 82(4) 2002.
26. Redmond AC, Landorf KB, Keenan AM. Contoured, prefabricated foot orthesses demonstrate comparable mechanical properties to countoured, customized foot orthoses: a plantar pressure study. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 2: 20. 2009.
27. Ball KA. Afheldt MJ. Evolution of foot orthotics- part 1 : Coherent theory or coherent practice?. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 25(2) 2002
28. Ball KA. Afheldt MJ. Evolution of foot orthotics- part 2 : Research reshapes long-standing theory. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 25(2) 2002
29. Walter JH, Ng G, Stoltz JJ. A Patient Satisfaction Survey on Prescription Custom- Molded Foot Orthoses. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 94(4) 2004.