Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño."— Presentation transcript:

1 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño E, Nester CJ. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1331–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038JSP Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis Rachel Majumdar, BSc (Hons); Philip Laxton, MSc; Anna Thuesen, BSc (Hons); Barry Richards, BSc (Hons); Anmin Liu, PhD; Francisca Arán-Ais, PhD; Enrique Montiel Parreño, PhD; Christopher J. Nester, PhD

2 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño E, Nester CJ. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1331–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038JSP Aim – Develop and evaluate new antipronation foot orthosis that addressed problems perceived by clinicians and users with existing foot orthoses. Relevance – Prefabricated orthoses are in demand because of constraints on healthcare resources, but anecdotal observations indicate design shortcomings compared with custom-made foot orthoses.

3 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño E, Nester CJ. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1331–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038JSP Method Clinicians and users were engaged to develop user specification for orthosis. Orthotic geometry and materials were developed using clinical reasoning. Orthotic material properties were tested. Ability of orthosis to reduce foot pronation was evaluated on 27 individuals.

4 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño E, Nester CJ. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1331–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038JSP Results Clinician and user concerns about prefabricated orthoses: – Shape and materials don’t sufficiently support foot. – Durability. – Hygiene. New orthosis design: – Geometry adjusted to enable individual foot sizes. – Harder and more durable material selected. New orthosis effect on pronation: – Reduced maximum rearfoot eversion during walking and running.

5 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño E, Nester CJ. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1331–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0038JSP Conclusion Through structured process, orthotic design decisions were made that addressed specific concerns of clinicians and users. New orthosis was proven to reduce rearfoot pronation.


Download ppt "This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, Richards B, Liu A, Arán-Ais F, Montiel Parreño."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google