Re: Follow Up to Adjustable foot question

Re: Follow Up to Adjustable foot question

mark benveniste

10/13/2006

Dear Colleagues,

I was able to follow up directly with technical representatives of the manufacturers of both the Ossur's foot and Freedom Innovation's foot.

Somethings have been clarified and another more important point was revealed.

Ossur's foot was acknowledged to have a shorter toe lever as the sound side foot.
Freedom's foot maintains the original toe lever of the foot when it is flat, and the thought is, that because we don't have the accommodating muscles in the foot, that unchanging toe lever is important. This is an interesting consideration I had not thought of.

However, and perhaps more importantly, is that both manufacturers claim that the competition's foot actually increases the MPT to floor length by about a 1/4 of an inch (approx 8mm) when in a 2inch heel, thus creating a leg length discrepancy that would probably be noticed.

I have yet to make the comparison myself, but it seems easy enough to measure the top of the pyramid in both the flat and 2 inch heel. A weight was suggested to take the compression of the foot shell into consideration.
Using leather soles for both heights vs soft soles could also make the comparison easier.

Any schools out there that would like to do that experiment?

Sincerely,
Mark Benveniste RN BS CP
VA Med Ctr
Houston, TX
USA



Benveniste, David Mark < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote: Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for your comments.

After reading my post again, I feel there might be some clarification
needed.

I think we can agree that the actual length of the keel remains the
same. The question is whether there is a shortening of the toe lever. A
natural foot has a shortened toe lever when in higher heel shoes.

My point is two fold.

Are both mfgrs making technical points in selling a product that may or
may not be correct or biomechanically sound?

I would think we would want to look at these claims critically.

For awhile, I spouted the advantages of one foot over the other because
of the claims of maintaining the same toe lever.
When both mfgrs made the claim, I started questioning where the truth in
advertising was, and then whether it actually made sense.

Of course we look at how these different feet work with an individual
pt, but it does not seem to be appropriate to extol the virtues of
maintaining the same lever arm length when it may or may not be true, or
necessary.

I would like to hear from the manufacturers directly to find out what
they are thinking.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the comments of the representatives of the
two companies.

Mark Benveniste RN BS CP
MEDVA Medical Center
Houston, TX
USA










-----Original Message-----
 Adjustable foot question

 

Dear Colleagues:

The individual manufacturers of both the Elation and Runway adjustable
feet have stated that their foot, when adjusted to a higher heel height,
do not shorten the keel. They each say that their competions foot does
shorten the keel.

My question is:

1) Does one or both actually maintain keel length?

2) If your natural foot is in a shoe with a raised heel, doesn't the
length of your forefoot essentially shorten?
 (Think of the dramatic effect of womens high heels.)

Therefore, do we actually want a foot that does shorten the keel vs
maintaining keel length?


What am I missing?

Mark Benveniste RN BS CP
MEDVA Medical Center
Houston, TX
USA