Comparison of the effectiveness of foot orthosis use in pes planus treatment with combination of kinesio taping

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical evaluations, disease impact, disability and foot function of symptomatic flexible pes planus (SFPP) deformity patients treated with the University of California at Berkeley Laboratory (UCBL) foot orthosis and Kinesio tape (KT) to those treated only with the UCBL orthosis. Methods: A total of 100 feet in 50 subjects with a mean age of 77.10 months were included in the study. The subjects were divided into two groups: Group 1 (UCBL foot orthosis with KT, n=27) and Group 2 (UCBL-alone, n=23). Group 1 consisted of 27 patients (14 girls, 13 boys) with an average age of 62 months (range: 25 to 165), while Group 2 consisted of 23 patients (10 girls,13 boys) with an average age of 63 months (range: 30 to 166). Various assessments, including American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, anteroposterior and lateral talocalcaneal and talo-first metatarsal angles, talonavicular angle, calcaneal pitch angle and clinical examinations, were conducted to foot-specific disease activity, and foot function. Results: Group 1 exhibited mild-to-moderate foot disability and impairments, along with low levels of disease activity. Treatment with UCBL orthosis and Kinesio tape led to significant improvements in all AOFAS scores and foot angles. Substantial improvement in AOFAS scores was observed during the follow-up examination, except for the midfoot score. Discussion: The use of UCBL foot orthosis in conjunction with Kinesio tape appears to be a preferable treatment strategy for children and adolescents with SFPP. This combined approach is associated with a lower rate of complications, higher patient comfort levels, and faster improvement in both radiological and clinical findings when compared to the use of the UCBL orthosis alone.

Keywords

• Flatfoot deformity
• Foot orthosis
• Kinesio taping
• Pes planus
• UCBL

References

1. 1.Henry JK, Shakked R, Ellis SJ. Adult-AcquiredFlatfoot Deformity. Foot ankle Orthop. 2019 ;4(1):2473011418820847.
2. 2.Michaudet C, Edenfield KM, Nicolette GW, CarekPJ. Foot and Ankle Conditions: Pes Planus. FP Essent.2018; 465:18–23.
3. 3.Bubra PS, Keighley G, Rateesh S, Carmody D.Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction: an overlookedcause of foot deformity. J Fam Med Prim care. 2015;4(1):26–9.
4. 4.Kim MH, Cha S, Choi JE, et al. Relation of FlatfootSeverity with Flexibility and Isometric Strength ofthe Footand Trunk Extensors in Children. Child(Basel, Switzerland). 2022; 10(1).
5. 5.Shin B-J, Lee KM, Chung CY, et al. Analysis offactors influencing improvement of idiopathicflatfoot. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(32):e26894.
6. 6.Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M.Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children.Pediatrics. 2006; 118(2):634–9.
7. 7.Arencibia A, Matos J, Encinoso M, et al. Computedtomography and magnetic resonance imaging studyof a normal tarsal jointin a Bengal tiger (Pantheratigris). BMC Vet Res. 2019; 15(1):126.
8. 8.Wen X, Nie G, Liu C, et al. Osteotomies combinedwith soft tissue procedures for symptomatic flexibleflatfoot deformity in children. Am J Transl Res. 2020;12(10):6921–30.

9. 9.Stedge HL, Kroskie RM, Docherty CL. Kinesiotaping and the circulation and endurance ratio of thegastrocnemiusmuscle. J Athl Train. 2012;47(6):635–42.
10. 10.Keenan AM, Tanner CM. The effect of high-Dyeand low-Dye taping on rearfoot motion. J Am PodiatrMed Assoc. 2001; 91(5):255–61.
11. 11.Sangeorzan BJ, Mosca V, Hansen STJ. Effect ofcalcaneal lengthening on relationships among thehindfoot, midfoot, andforefoot. Foot Ankle. 1993; 14(3):136–41.
12. 12.Davids JR, Gibson TW, Pugh LI. Quantitativesegmental analysis of weight-bearing radiographs ofthe foot andankle for children: normal alignment. JPediatr Orthop. 2005; 25(6):769–76.
13. 13.Samir H, Eskander H. Management of Rigid FlatFoot in Children and Adolescents. 2020; 8(2).
14. 14.Rao UB, Joseph B. The influence of footwear onthe prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 2300 children.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992; 74(4):525–7.
15. 15.Macchi M, Spezia M, Elli S, Schiaffini G, Chisari E.Obesity Increases the Risk of Tendinopathy, TendonTear and Rupture, and Postoperative Complications:A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2020; 478(8):1839–47.
16. 16.Ferri M, Scharfenberger A V, Goplen G, DanielsTR, Pearce D. Weightbearing CT scan of severeflexible pes planus deformities. Foot ankle Int. 2008;29(2):199–204.
17. 17.Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinalarch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feetin normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1987; 69(3):426–8.
18. 18.Dars S, Uden H, Banwell HA, Kumar S. Theeffectiveness of non-surgical intervention (FootOrthoses) for paediatric flexible pes planus: Asystematic review: Update. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0193060.
19. 19.Rak V, Ira D, Masek M. Operative treatment ofintra-articular calcaneal fractures with calcanealplatesand its complications. Indian J Orthop. 2009;43(3):271–80.
20. 20.Banwell HA, Paris ME, Mackintosh S, WilliamsCM.Paediatric flexible flat foot: how are wemeasuring it and are we getting itright? A systematicreview. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018; 11:21.
21. 21.Child BJ, Hix J, Catanzariti AR, Mendicino RW,Saltrick K. The effect of hindfoot realignment intriple arthrodesis. J foot ankle SurgOff Publ AmCollFoot Ankle Surg. 2009; 48(3):285–93.
22. 22.Mereday C, Dolan CM, Lusskin R. Evaluation ofthe University of California Biomechanics Laboratory shoe insert in“flexible” pes planus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1972; 82:45–58.
23. 23. Hogan MT, Staheli LT. Arch height and lower limbpain: an adult civilian study. Foot ankle Int. 2002;23(1):43–7.
24. 24.Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Cila E. Footprint andradiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop.2001; 21(2):225–8.
25. 25.Kase K, Martin P, Yasukawa A. Kinesio Taping inPediatrics: Fundamentals and Whole Body Taping:Infant to Adolescent, Full Color, Step-by-step.Kinesio USA; 2006.
26. 26. Kogler GF, Solomonidis SE, Paul JP. Biomechanicsof longitudinal arch support mechanisms in footorthoses and their effect on plantar aponeurosisstrain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1996; 11(5):243–52.
27. 27.Simoneau GG, Derr JA, Ulbrecht JS, Becker MB,Cavanagh PR. Diabetic sensory neuropathy effect onankle joint movement perception. Arch Phys MedRehabil. 1996 ; 77(5):453–60.
28. 28. Yoshida A, Kahanov L. The effect of kinesio tapingon lower trunk range of motions. Res Sports Med.2007; 15(2):103–12.
29. 29.Imhauser CW, Abidi NA, Frankel DZ, Gavin K,Siegler S. Biomechanical evaluation of the efficacy ofexternal stabilizers in the conservative treatment ofacquired flatfoot deformity. Foot ankle Int. 2002;23(8):727–37.