NCT02706327

Comparison of Two Different Insole Types in Painful Flexible Flatfoot

Comparison of Two Different Insole Types on Pain, Quality of Life and Physical Performance in Painful Flexible Flatfoot

• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 67 (actual)
• Sponsor: Eastern Mediterranean University · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years – 45 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

The purpose of this study is to compare computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and semi-custom insole types on pain, quality of life and physical performance and also to decide whether they are necessary in treatment of painful flexible flatfoot.

Conditions

• Flatfoot

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
DEVICE	CAD/CAM Insole	A computer numerical control machine was used to product insoles according to pedobarographic pressure data;35 Shore A hardness ethyl vinyl acetate was used for the main insole, and 3 mm, 15 Shore A hardness ethyl vinyl acetate was used for covering. Orthotic insoles have been implemented in a pair of sports shoes.
DEVICE	Semi-custom Insole	Plantar surfaces of each patient's metatarsophalangeal joints were marked with a thick broad marker, and the participants were asked to stand on a clean paper. The borders of the foot were then drawn, and the medial longitudinal arch length was marked from the anterior aspect of the heel to the first metatarsophalangeal joint. These marks were used in designing and production. 35 Shore A hardness ethyl vinyl acetate was used for the main insole, and 3 mm, 15 Shore A hardness ethyl vinyl acetate was used for covering. Orthotic insoles have been implemented in a pair of sports shoes.
OTHER	Control	15 Shore A hardness ethyl vinyl acetate, implemented in a pair of sports shoes as a placebo insole.

Timeline

• Start date: 2014-01-01
• Primary completion: 2016-01-01
• Completion: 2016-02-01
• First posted: 2016-03-11
• Last updated: 2017-11-01
• Results posted: 2017-07-14