Why My Computer Said Signal Cable Not Connected

Some

had no plans to create a entry as soon but I need to do a little review of the literature.

1, Effects of non-adapted orthoses or prefabricated foot directly

"Scientific Assessment of Over-the-Counter Foot orthoses to Determine Their Effects on Pain, Balance, and Foot Deformities"

Background: A scientific study was conducted to evaluate the effects of non–custom-

molded (over-the-counter) foot orthoses.

Methods: Several parameters were examined, including foot, knee, hip, and back pain;

balance; and reduction in flexible deformities, such as hammer toes and hallux valgus.

Wherever possible, objective measurements were used, including measurements of shifts

in center of pressure to assess balance and changes in bone position examined on radio-

graphs. Forty-one individuals were analyzed using one of two types of prefabricated, non-

custom insoles. Insoles were fit by an assistant trained to follow the fitting recommenda-

tions of the manufacturer under the direct supervision of a podiatric physician.

Results: Use of these arch supports resulted in a significant reduction in some types of

foot pain associated with hallux valgus (P = .04) and pain in the arch area (P = .004), knee

(P = .002), and back (P = .007) by week 4. We also measured changes in foot position

documented by radiography, although some changes may be attributed to parallax associ-

ated with measurement techniques. Improvement in balance was not observed to be sig-

nificant when the orthoses were worn.

Conclusions: Using Both subjective and Objective Measures, we found That

These over-the-counter foot orthoses Were Effective in Bringing about Changes in foot shape and con-comitant

Un certain specific relief of painful conditions. This study Indicates That There Is A

scientific basis for Attempting to relief pain with orthoses. (J Am Med Assoc Podiatrist

99 (3): 206-215, 2009)

In one study alone can not make a dogma, but shown to be effective, other studies also compared custom-made brace and looks that are less effective prefabricated than the others. Although the study does not prove this, I wonder: Does

be perfectly adapted to plant at the foot brace to take effect?

At what is called a suit right? if each fits in its own way and work alike.

who takes the stand is such that it is, without controlling anything, or who corrects them or take them over neutral, and have for years and do well, then? need to know the why, as interpreted differently by everyone.

2 º wedges Effects of forefoot and hindfoot and its effects

"Changes in Plantar Foot Pressure with In-Shoe Varus or Valgus Wedging"

Varus and valgus wedging are commonly used by podiatric physicians

in therapy with custom-made foot orthoses. This study aimed to pro-

vide scientific evidence of the effects on plantar foot pressure of apply-

ing in-shoe forefoot or rearfoot wedging. The plantar foot pressure dis-

tribution of 23 subjects walking on a treadmill was recorded using a

pressure insole system for seven different wedging conditions, ranging

from 3° valgus to 6° varus for the forefoot and from 4° valgus to 8°

varus for the rearfoot. The results demonstrate that increasing varus

wedging magnifies peak pressure and maximal loading rate at the me-

dial forefoot and rearfoot, whereas increasing valgus wedging magni-

fies peak pressure and maximal loading rate at the lateral forefoot and

rearfoot. As expected, the location of the center of pressure shifts me-

dially with varus wedging and laterally with valgus wedging. However,

these shifts are less significant than those in peak load and maximal

loading rate. Timing variables such as interval from initial impact to

peak load do not seem to be affected by forefoot or rearfoot wedging.

Finally, rearfoot wedging does not significantly influence pressure vari-

ables of the forefoot, similarly, rearfoot pressure Remains unaffected by

forefoot wedging. (J Am Podiatric Med Assoc 94 (1): 1-11, 2004)

A medial wedge increases the peak pressure in medial and lateral wedge causes the peak pressure is on the side. Wedges

medial change the CoP medially and vice versa.

applied in forefoot wedges show no significant influence on the pressures of the hindfoot and vice versa.

"Effect of 7-Degree Valgus and Varus Rearfoot wedging on Rearfoot Kinematics and Kinetics During the Stance Phase of Walking"

Javier Pascual Huerta, DP*

Juan Manuel Ropa Moreno, DP*

Kevin A. Kirby, DPM†

Francisco Javier García Carmona, DP‡

Angel Manuel Orejana García, DP‡

Background: The scientific evidence behind the mechanical function of foot orthoses is

still controversial. Research studies that have investigated the kinematic effect of foot

orthoses on the lower extremity have shown variable results, with orthoses causing ei-

ther no significant change or a small significant change in foot kinematics.

Methods: The right limbs of 12 healthy asymptomatic individuals were studied in three

walking conditions: barefoot, with a 7° rearfoot varus wedge, and with a 7° rearfoot val-

gus wedge. Kinematic and kinetic variables measured were the foot progression angle,

the peak internal tibial rotation angle, and net ankle inversion moments during the

stance phase in the three conditions.

Results: There were statistically significant differences in the foot progression angle be-

tween the barefoot and varus wedge conditions and between the varus and valgus

wedge conditions. There were no significant changes in peak internal tibial rotation

among the three conditions tested. However, rearfoot varus wedges significantly reduced

net ankle inversion moments compared with barefoot and rearfoot valgus wedges.

Conclusions: These results support the idea that foot orthoses work by methods other than by changing kinematic parameters. The present study supports the concept that foot orthoses work primarily by altering kinetics, with their effects on kinematics being secondary. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(5): 415-421, 2009)

Los resultados dan soporte a la idea de que las ortesis trabajan por other methods that change the kinematic parameters. This study supports the concept that foot orthoses work first by kinetic changes, with its subsequent cinematic effects.

With these two items we can start to doubt whether the deformities in the transverse plane forefoot are so common (not that they exist) as a cause of disease (but not if it causes sagittal plane), but more:

I recommend reading this article:

"The Past, Present, and Future of Podiatric Biomechanics" and a small piece of philosophy of science that everyone should tener en cuenta:

Historical studies reveal that the evolution of the major branches of science does not exhibit the structure assumed by the positivist approach. Kuhn51, 52 interpreted the development of scientific knowledge as a succession of “revolutions” in which dominant “paradigms” are overthrown and replaced by other paradigms.53-59 His account of the progress of scientif-

ic inquiry sees science as consisting of long periods of orderly, disciplined work—which he called “normal science”—punctuated by periods of intellectual ferment leading to revolutions in which the old theoretical order is overthrown, after which a new period of normal science begins. Normal science is characterized by the collective acceptance of a certain paradigm, or framework of ideas. This set of assumptions determines what is considered acceptable “science” or “practice” at any given time. Practitioners direct their work toward solving problems that are determined by or relevant to the dominant paradigm at the time. Kuhn’s central argument is that scientific concepts must be understood within the particular historical and social context in which they developed. This is an appropriate view to adopt for an exploration of the history and future course of podiatric biomechanics: It can help explain the field’s past as well as help predict its future.

Kun interpreta development of scientific knowledge as a succession of "revolutions" in which the current paradigm is overthrown by a new emerging.

science classifies it as long periods of order, discipline of work that qualifies as "normal science" and is combined with periods of time in which new ideas are emerging, studies that begin to leak to the previous paradigm and then study time was just accepted by all professionals as a new paradigm and re-enter the era of normal science. Is a string that will last a lifetime so I wonder when they say "before this and now you said the other" is quite correct that what that is wise, but here is essential to rectify when we see that the new scientific evidence shows us that we were doing something wrong.

would be very unproductive conflict to defend theories that are being overturned and defend what everyone does personally because he did so throughout life. Everyone has their way of working, it is impossible that we all work well, but at the time to discuss, provide studies with an acceptable level of evidence.

In my case, I appreciate someone telling me, looking prospect, read these articles that contradict what you're doing, it is welcome to follow the right path and change my ways of working, thinking and correct errors.

A paradigm is difficult to define precisely, but includes scientific laws and theoretical assumptions and its application. Kuhn characterized paradigms as "universally recognized achievements, which has long provided model problems and solutions a community of professionals. paradigm reflects the unique set of beliefs, values, and methods shared by this community of practitioners, a world view that shapes the thinking and scientific action . The structure of scientific paradigms come to light of concepts and theories that have embedded in the paradigm.

"Effect of foot orthoses on lower extremity kinetics DURING running: a Systematic literature review"

Abstract Background

THROUGHOUT the Period of one year, Approximately 50% of Recreational runners will

That

sustain an injury disrupts their training regimen. Foot orthoses have been shown to

be clinically effective in the prevention and treatment of several running-related

conditions, yet the physical effect of this intervention during running remains poorly

understood. The aim of this literature review was therefore to evaluate the effect of foot

orthoses on lower extremity forces and pressure (kinetics) during running.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases including Medline (1966-present),

CINAHL, SportDiscus, and The Cochrane Library occurred on 7 May 2008. Eligible

articles were selected according to pre-determined criteria. Methodological quality was

evaluated by use of the Quality Index as described by Downs & Black, followed by

critical analysis according to outcome variables.

Results

The most widely reported kinetic outcomes were loading rate and impact force,

however the effect of foot orthoses on these variables remains unclear. In contrast,

current evidence suggests that a reduction in the rearfoot inversion moment is the most consistent kinetic effect of foot orthoses during running.

Conclusion

The findings of this review Demonstrate That May Systematic effects

inform the direction of future research

, as Further Evidence is required to define the Mechanism of action of foot orthoses

DURING running. Continuation of research in this field will enable targeting of design parameters

biomechanical variables Towards That Are Supported by Evidence, May

and lead to advancements in clinical efficacy.

The most widely reported were speed and force of impact,
However, the effect of foot orthoses on these variables is unclear. contrast,
Current evidence suggests that a reduction in the time of rearfoot inversion is more consistent kinetic effect of orthoses during the race.

" Application of Center-of-Pressure Data to Indicate Rearfoot Inversion-Eversion in Shod Running"

Although pressure plates

Are Used to help in the selection

of Appropriate footwear for runners, Evidence Relating Aspects of pressure data to move-ment is Lacking

. A study WAS Conducted to Investigate whether center-of-

pressure (COP) data for shod running Could Obtained be used to indicate

the amount of rearfoot eversion. It was hypothesized that subjects exhibit-

ing high rearfoot eversion during the initial ground contact phase of run-

ning would also show a large lateral-to-medial deviation in the COP.

Pressure plate and rearfoot movement data were collected for 33 sub-

jects. The COP was characterized using the lateral-to-medial deviation of

the COP during the eversion phase of ground contact. Correlation coeffi-

cients were determined for COP deviation versus rearfoot range of motion

and versus peak rearfoot eversion (P < .05). In addition, subjects were

grouped as high, moderate, or low pronators, and analysis of variance was

used to test whether there were significant differences in COP deviation

for these three groups (P < .05). The COP deviation was found to have a

low correlation with rearfoot range of motion (R = 0.46; P < .05) and with

peak rearfoot eversion (R = .54; P < .05) . High pronators had signifi-

cantly higher COP deviation than the medium- and low-pronation groups

(P < .05). These findings support the use of COP deviation to detect high

pronation. However, caution is advised in using the COP to indicate ab-

solute rearfoot eversion. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96(4): 305-312, 2006)

The difference between low and middle-pronator with the CoP has a low correlation. Because

CoP is where you begin to assess whether the pressures are useful platforms. The kinetic

if, in the kinematics are not necessary.

"The Independent and Interactive Effects of Navicular Drop and Quadriceps Angle on Neuromuscular Responses to

a Weight-Bearing perturbation"

Context: Little is Known about the effects of static alignment on neuromuscular control DURING dynamic of the knee motion.

Objective: To Evaluate the Combined and isolated effects of quadriceps angle (QA) and navicular drop (ND) on neuromuscular responses to a weight-bearing perturbation.

Design: Mixed-model, repeated-measures design.

Setting: Sports medicine and athletic training research laboratory.

Patients or Other Participants: Seventy-nine National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I collegiate female athletes, classified with below-average ND and QA (LND-LQA); below-

average ND and above-average QA (LND-HQA); above-average ND and below-average QA (HND-LQA); or above-average ND and QA (HND-HQA).

Intervention(s): A lower extremity perturbation device pro duced a forward and either internal or external rotation of the trunk and femur on the weight-bearing tibia to evoke a reflex response.

Main Outcome Measure(s): Neuromuscular responses were examined in the quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius mus cles: preperturbation amplitude 50 milliseconds before the pertur bation, reflex time, and postperturbation amplitude 150 millisec-

onds immediately postperturbation.

Results: Navicular drop had the greatest effect on preperturbation amplitude of the lateral hamstrings and postperturbation amplitude of all muscles, with greater activation amplitude noted in subjects in the HND classifications. Quadriceps angle primarily affected reflex time of the quadriceps; in sub jects with LQA, reflex time was faster for internal rotation than

external rotation perturbations. The interaction between ND and QA had the greatest effect on reflex time of the lateral ham strings. For internal rotation perturbations, subjects in the LND classifications had faster reflex times in the lateral hamstrings if they had HQA values rather than LQA values. With external rotation perturbations, HND-LQA subjects had slower reflex times than those in all other alignment classifications.

Conclusions: Navicular drop and QA have both independent and interactive effects on neuromuscular responses to a weight-bearing, rotational perturbation. These interactive effects highlight the importance of considering the entire lower extrem ity posture rather than a single alignment characteristic, given the potential for one alignment factor to compensate for or interact with another.

Interactive Effects of Navicular Drop and

Quadriceps Angle

We were somewhat surprised by the finding that subjects classified as HND-HQA responded to the ER and IR perturbations in a similar manner (in both timing and activation am-

plitude) to those with a more neutral alignment (LND-LQA).

This was contrary to our hypothesis, because our expectation was that the combination of HND and HQA would accentuate a valgus knee posture, thereby increasing tibiofemoral joint

loading and stress , particularly with an ER perturbation. However, our findings suggest that when both HND and HQA are present, these malalignments may have somewhat opposing

biomechanical effects on tibiofemoral motion and essentially may cancel each other out to some extent. This result was particularly apparent in the LH. The HND influenced LH ac-

tivation with an ER perturbation but only in subjects with LQA. Similarly, HQA influenced only LH activation with IR perturbations in subjects with LND.

Este es el estudio al que hacía referencia ayer. En el que un high navicular drop (associated with pronation subastralina) and increased Q angle, show no delay the neuromuscular system, if you produce LQA (low Q angle) and HND (Hight navicular drop) and vice versa.

Therefore, treating a pronation in a patient with an increased Q angle can produce a joint stress and / or musculotendinous.

I've run out of time, duty calls me that this is free. I hope I have created uncertainty and managed to open some minds for us all to go rowing in the pair.

Podiatrists most experts on the subject may criticize dependent as some studies are made, which are usually needed, notice and therefore if it is true, although there is already enough cases're published literature since 1990.

In my 2 years as a podiatrist am more than aware of my shortcomings and all the great way that I have to go, learn, make mistakes, perfect, but always with humility in order to keep up and know the truth.