Foot orthoses (FOs) are popular treatment to alleviate several abnormalities of lower extremity. FO designs might alter lower extremity biomechanics differently, but the association is not yet known. This review aimed to evaluate how different FO designs, namely FO with medial posting, lateral posting, arch support, or arch & heel support, change lower limb kinematics and kinetics during walking. Electronic database search were conducted from inception to March 2019, and 25 papers passed the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers checked the quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist (73.7±5.5%) and a biomechanical quality checklist (71.4±17.1%). Effect sizes for differences between with- and without- FO walking were calculated, and meta-analysis was performed whenever at least two studies reported the same variable. Medial posting reduced peak ankle eversion moment. Lateral posting brought about higher peak ankle dorsiflexion and peak ankle eversion for kinematics, as well as higher peak ankle abduction moment, lower peak knee adduction moment, and higher peak mediolateral ground reaction force (GRF) for kinetics. FOs with either arch support or arch & heel support tended to decrease vertical ground reaction force, but it was not significant. The findings of this review reveal that medial or lateral posting work efficiently to change foot and knee kinematics and kinetics. However, the impact force is just slightly decreased by arch-supported and heel supported FOs. Due to the small number of available studies, and heterogeneity in meta-analysis findings, further research with more standardized biomechanical approach are required.

Introduction: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a devastating complication of diabetes. There are numerous challenges with preventing diabetic foot complications and barriers to achieving the care processes suggested in established foot care guidelines. Multi-faceted digital health solutions, which combine multimodal sensing, patient-facing biofeedback, and remote patient monitoring (RPM), show promise in improving our ability to understand, prevent, and manage DFUs. Methods: Patients with a history of diabetic plantar foot ulcers were enrolled in a prospective cohort study and equipped with custom sensory insoles to track plantar pressure, plantar temperature, step count, and adherence data. Sensory insole data enabled patient-facing biofeedback to cue active plantar offloading in response to sustained high plantar pressures, and RPM assessments in response to data trends of concern in plantar pressure, plantar temperature, or sensory insole adherence. Three non-consecutive case participants that ultimately presented with pre-ulcerative lesions (a callus and/or erythematous area on the plantar surface of the foot) during the study were selected for this case series. Results: Across three illustrative patients, continuous plantar pressure monitoring demonstrated promise for empowering both the patient and provider with information for data-driven management of pressure offloading treatments. Conclusion: Multi-faceted digital health solutions can naturally enable and reinforce the integrative foot care guidelines. Multi-modal sensing across multiple physiologic domains supports the monitoring of foot health at various stages along the DFU pathogenesis pathway. Furthermore, digital health solutions equipped with remote patient monitoring unlock new opportunities for personalizing treatments, providing periodic self-care reinforcement, and encouraging patient engagement—key tools for improving patient adherence to their diabetic foot care plan.

Diabetes and its complications, particularly diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), pose significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. DFUs result in severe consequences such as amputation, increased mortality rates, reduced mobility, and substantial healthcare costs. The majority of DFUs are preventable and treatable through early detection. Sensor-based remote patient monitoring (RPM) has been proposed as a possible solution to overcome limitations, and enhance the effectiveness, of existing foot care best practices. However, there are limited frameworks available on how to approach and act on data collected through sensor-based RPM in DFU prevention. This perspective article offers insights from deploying sensor-based RPM through digital DFU prevention regimens. We summarize the data domains and technical architecture that characterize existing commercially available solutions. We then highlight key elements for effective RPM integration based on these new data domains, including appropriate patient selection and the need for detailed clinical assessments to contextualize sensor data. Guidance on establishing escalation pathways for remotely monitored at-risk patients and the importance of predictive system management is provided. DFU prevention RPM should be integrated into a comprehensive disease management strategy to mitigate foot health concerns, reduce activity-associated risks, and thereby seek to be synergistic with other components of diabetes disease management. This integrated approach has the potential to enhance disease management in diabetes, positively impacting foot health and the healthspan of patients living with diabetes.

Intracortical bone pins are introduced as gold standard for analysing skeletal motion because of eliminating soft tissue artefact. However, excluding this methodological error might be in cost of intervening movement pattern by local anaesthesia and pain of external tool within body. The purpose of this study was to examine whether intracortical bone pins alter shoulder joint kinematics or coordination. Three subjects were analysed during arm elevation/depression in frontal and sagittal planes. Retroreflective skin markers captured the motion in two sessions, before and after inserting bone pins (SKIN and PIN sessions), respectively. Thoracohumeral and scapulothoracic kinematics and scapulohumeral rhythm (SHR) were compared between two sessions. Thoracohumeral exhibited lower elevation and internal rotation in PIN session especially close to maximum arm elevation. The highest differences were observed for scapulothoracic kinematics, with higher retraction during abduction as well as higher posterior tilt, lateral rotation and retraction during flexion in PIN session. In addition, no systematic changes in SHR between subjects was found. Statistically significant lower SHR in PIN session was observed over 87-100% of thoracohumeral elevation/depression cycle in frontal plane and over 25-61% in sagittal plane. Further studies should treat carefully toward the clinical validity of shoulder joint kinematics after inserting bone pins.