Journal of Foot and Ankle Research - Latest Comments

Intra-articular hyaluronan for first MTPJ osteoarthritis trial published

Hylton Menz — 2012-05-12T03:17:49Z

The trial described in this protocol paper has now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases:

http://ard.bmj.com/content/70/10/1838.abstract

Ultrasound movie of infiltration technique available at YouTube channel

Hylton Menz — 2012-05-12T03:17:10Z

An ultrasound movie of the medial oblique plantar fascia infiltration technique used in this study can be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5nsEMypmlg

All Podiatrists should be able to recognise suspected Malignant Melanoma

Ursula Igoe — 2011-01-29T23:44:20Z

This is a very useful article & I believe that there has not been enough research undertaken about recognising Plantar or Subungal Malignant Melanoma. Whilst practicing over the past 8 years, I have recognised 2 cases of Malignant Melanoma both of which were on the lower leg. In both cases I urged the Patients to see their Gp's urgently, who referred the patients for excision of the lesion. In both cases the MM was caught early before metastisising, with a good prognosis. I graduated from Huddersfield University & I am grateful,that, during my training, it was emphasised how to recognise Malignant Melanoma.

MatScan video available at JFAR YouTube Channel

Hylton Menz — 2010-09-02T07:24:32Z

A video showing the output of the MatScan system used in this study has been linked to the JFAR YouTube Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/JFootAnkleRes#p/f/0/QuaEdhgLdKM

The JFAR editorial team

Corrections to additional files 2 and 3

Bill Vicenzino — 2010-04-13T13:50:28Z

The authors would like to highlight to readers the following corrections to additional files 2 and 3:
Additional file 2: ST stance average for the difference between tape and pre-tape conditions is missing a minus sign and should read -0.4 (-0.8 to -0.1)
Additional file 3: : Knee sagittal minimum for the difference between post-tape and pre-tape conditions is missing a minus sign and should read -0.5 (-0.9 to -0.2)

Need for custom orthotics vs. prefabricated orthotics

Eddie Davis — 2010-03-02T01:00:37Z

I agree that prefabricated orthotics can provide a similar therapeutic benefit to custom orthotics in a number of scenarios. I wore eyeglasses with a very high degree of correction before I underwent refractive surgery in 2006. Now, I need wear only reading glasses obtained from a retail store. Recently, I had an eye exam and the optometrist informed me that I would do somewhat better with a prescription pair. I obtained the prescription pair but did not feel it worked as well as the "prefab" pair.

I prescribe three categories of foot orthotics in my practice: prefabricated, customized prefabricated and true custom orthotics. The decision as to which category to choose is based, in part, upon the nature of the prescription required by the patient. My heel pain/plantar fasciitis patients with rather average looking feet often do well with the prefabs or modified prefabs. Other categories of patients must have a custom device. For example, a patient with functional hallux rigidus/limitus often requires a device which effectively reduces forefoot supinatus perhaps including modifications such as a first ray cutout and extrinsic forefoot valgus posting. Another example, a patient with a history of Charcot arthropathy with a residual calcaneo-cuboid concavity; the orthotic shell need accomodate for that. It would be most challenging to create a study that compare custom vs. prefab when the prescriptions require a higher degree of customization.

Perhaps the debate need shift to elucidate the scenarios where custom is required and where prefab might suffice. An untoward effect of the failure to do so is that ammunition is provided to corporate and governmental policymakers who have had an anti-conservative foot care bias which I believe is prevalent in the US.