BackgroundFlexible flat foot is a normal observation in typically developing children, however, some children with flat feet present with pain and impaired lower limb function. The challenge for health professionals is to identify when foot posture is outside of expected findings and may warrant intervention. Diagnoses of flexible flat foot is often based on radiographic or clinical measures, yet the validity and reliability of these measures for a paediatric population is not clearly understood. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how paediatric foot posture is defined and measured within the literature, and if the psychometric properties of these measures support any given diagnoses.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, AMED, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were systematically searched in January 2017 for empirical studies where participants had diagnosed flexible flat foot and were aged 18 years or younger. Outcomes of interest were the foot posture measures and definitions used. Further articles were sought where cited in relation to the psychometric properties of the measures used.ResultsOf the 1101 unique records identified by the searches, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 20 foot posture measures and 40 definitions of paediatric flexible flat foot. A further 18 citations were sought in relation to the psychometric properties of these measures. Three measures were deemed valid and reliable, the FPI-6 > + 6 for children aged three to 15 years, a Staheli arch index of > 1.07 for children aged three to six and ≥ 1.28 for children six to nine, and a Chippaux-Smirak index of > 62.7% in three to seven year olds, > 59% in six to nine year olds and ≥ 40% for children aged nine to 16 years. No further measures were found to be valid for the paediatric population.ConclusionNo universally accepted criteria for diagnosing paediatric flat foot was found within existing literature, and psychometric data for foot posture measures and definitions used was limited. The outcomes of this review indicate that the FPI – 6, Staheli arch index or Chippaux-Smirak index should be the preferred method of paediatric foot posture measurement in future research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13047-018-0264-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundFlexible pes planus (flat feet) in children is a common presenting condition in clinical practice due to concerns amongst parents and caregivers. While Foot Orthoses (FOs) are a popular intervention, their effectiveness remains unclear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to update the current evidence base for the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases (Cochrane, Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINHAL, SportDiscus, Scopus and PEDro) was conducted from January 2011 to July 2017. Studies of children (0–18 years) diagnosed with flexible pes planus and intervention to be any type of Foot Orthoses (FOs) were included. This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. McMaster critical review form for quantitative studies, was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a descriptive synthesis of the included studies was undertaken.ResultsOut of 606 articles identified, 11 studies (three RCTs; two case-controls; five case-series and one single case study) met the inclusion criteria. A diverse range of pre-fabricated and customised FOs were utilised and effectiveness measured through a plethora of outcomes. Summarised findings from the heterogeneous evidence base indicated that FOs may have a positive impact across a range of outcomes including pain, foot posture, gait, function and structural and kinetic measures. Despite these consistent positive outcomes reported in several studies, the current evidence base lacks clarity and uniformity in terms of diagnostic criteria, interventions delivered and outcomes measured for paediatric flexible pes planus.ConclusionThere continues to remain uncertainty on the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus. Despite a number of methodological limitations, FOs show potential as a treatment method for children with flexible pes planus.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017057310.

BackgroundFoot orthoses are widely used in the management of flexible pes planus, yet the evidence to support this intervention has not been clearly defined. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise the evidence for the use of foot orthoses for flexible pes planus in adults.MethodsElectronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of science, SportDiscus, Embase) were systematically searched in June 2013 for randomised controlled, controlled clinical and repeated measure trials where participants had identified flexible pes planus using a validated and reliable measure of pes planus and the intervention was a rigid or semi-rigid orthoses with the comparison being a no-orthoses (shoes alone or flat non-posted insert) condition. Outcomes of interest were foot pain, rearfoot kinematics, foot kinetics and physical function.ResultsOf the 2,211 articles identified by the searches, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; two were randomised controlled trials, one was a controlled trial and 10 were repeated measure studies. Across the included studies, 59 relevant outcome measures were reported with 17 calculated as statistically significant large or medium effects observed with use of foot orthoses compared to the no orthoses condition (SMD range 1.13 to -4.11).ConclusionsNo high level evidence supported the use of foot orthoses for flexible pes planus. There is good to moderate level evidence that foot orthoses improve physical function (medial-lateral sway in standing (level II) and energy cost during walking (level III)). There is low level evidence (level IV) that foot orthoses improve pain, reduce rearfoot eversion, alter loading and impact forces; and reduce rearfoot inversion and eversion moments in flexible pes planus. Well-designed randomised controlled trials that include appropriate sample sizes, clinical cohorts and involve a measure of symptom change are required to determine the efficacy of foot orthoses to manage adult flexible pes planus.

BackgroundFoot orthoses are commonly used for symptomatic flexible pes planus in adults. However, there are no clinical guidelines for the prescription of customised foot orthoses that are specific to this population. The aim of this study was to investigate prescription habits of Australian podiatrists for customised foot orthoses for symptomatic flexible pes planus in adults and to develop consensus-based practice recommendations for the prescription of these foot orthoses.MethodsA four round Delphi survey was undertaken with 24 podiatric experts to establish current use and rationale for individual prescription variables of customised foot orthoses for symptomatic flexible pes planus in adults. Round one determined prescription use (consensus) and rounds two, three and four determined the rationale for use (agreement) of prescription variables across the rearfoot, midfoot, forefoot, as well as accommodation and materials used. For consensus and agreement to be accepted, 70% of the respondents were required to use or agree on the rationale for use of individual prescription variables.ResultsConsensus was reached in round one for two variables, choice of shell material (polyolefin) and when to prescribe a forefoot post balanced to perpendicular. In rounds two, three and four, agreement was reached for 52 statements related to the rationale for use of individual prescription variables, including when to prescribe: an inverted cast pour [heel in an inverted position], an inverted rearfoot post, a medial heel (Kirby) skive, minimal/maximum arch fill, a medial flange, a forefoot post and common orthotic accommodations.ConclusionThis study found consensus or agreement for the use of several prescription variables for customised foot orthoses for symptomatic flexible pes planus in adults. The findings were used to develop the Foot orthosis Prescription Recommendations for symptOmatic flexible Pes planus in adults (FootPROP) proforma, to guide clinicians and researchers in the prescription of customised foot orthoses for this population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13047-014-0049-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Wound care and the use of antiseptics has long been the subject of much debate within the health professional’s literature. This study was undertaken to determine the range of literature available on povidone-iodine (PVP-I) antiseptic use and the evidence supporting the outcomes reported. A range of articles was collected and divided into subgroups based on hierarchy of evidence and the five evidence dimensions [1]. Using the READER^® scoring tool, articles were evaluated and given a numerical award between 4 and 25 as a determinant of their quality in method, statistical analysis and outcome measures, with those scoring 12.5 or higher (from a possible 25) deemed as offering a satisfactory level of evidence. Statistical analysis on the results prior to applying the READER scoring tool found that overall 49% of articles did not support PVP-I use. However, this situation changed when the quality of evidence was limited to articles scoring >12.5. The higher-scored articles showed a 71% support for the continued use of PVP-I. The outcome of this study shows that there is reason for further debate over the use of PVP-I.

BackgroundPaediatric gait and lower limb assessments are frequently undertaken in podiatry and physiotherapy clinical practice and this is a growing area of expertise within Australia. No concise paediatric standardised recording proforma exists to assist clinicians in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop a gait and lower limb standardised recording proforma guided by the literature and consensus, for assessment of the paediatric foot and lower limb in children aged 0–18 years.MethodExpert Australian podiatrists and physiotherapists were invited to participate in a three round Delphi survey panel using the online Qualtrics© survey platform. The first round of the survey consisted of open-ended questions on paediatric gait and lower limb assessment developed from existing templates and a literature search of standardised lower limb assessment methods. Rounds two and three consisted of statements developed from the first round responses. Questions and statements were included in the final proforma if 70 % or more of the participants indicated consensus or agreement with the assessment method and if there was support within the literature for paediatric age-specific normative data with acceptable reliability of outcome measures.ResultsThere were 17 of the 21 (81 %) participants who completed three rounds of the survey. Consensus was achieved for 41 statements in Round one, 54 statements achieved agreement in two subsequent rounds. Participants agreed on 95 statements relating to birth history, developmental history, hip measurement, rotation of the lower limb, ankle range of motion, foot posture, balance and gait. Assessments with acceptable validity and reliability were included within the final Gait and Lower Limb Observation of Paediatrics (GALLOP) proforma.ConclusionThe GALLOP proforma is a consensus based, systematic and standardised way to collect information and outcome measures in paediatric lower limb assessment. This standardised recording proforma will assist professions to collect information in a standardised format based on best evidence assessment methods whilst aiding consistency in communication between health professionals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13047-016-0139-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundFlexible pes planus (flat feet) in children is a common reason parents and caregivers seek health professionals consult and a frequent reason podiatrists prescribe foot orthoses. Yet no universal agreement exists on the diagnosis of this condition, or when and how foot orthoses should be prescribed. The aim of this study was to garner consensus and agreement among podiatrists on the use of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus.MethodsA three round Delphi consensus survey was undertaken with 15 podiatry experts from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Round One gathered consensus on the diagnosis and intervention into paediatric pes planus with specific questions on types of FOs and prescription variables used. Round Two and Three were based on answers from Round One and gathered agreement (rationale for choices) on a five point Likert scale. 70% of respondents had to agree to a statement for it to be accepted as consensus or agreement.ResultsConsensus and agreement was achieved for 83 statements directing the diagnosis of pes planus (using FPI-6 and/or rearfoot measures), common signs and symptoms (e.g., pain, fatigue, abnormal gait and other functional concerns) that direct when to intervene into paediatric flexible pes planus. Prefabricated orthoses were the preferred intervention where adequate control is gained with their use. When customised orthoses are prescribed, a vertical [heel] cast pour (71.4%) and minimal arch fill (76.9%) are the prescription variables of choice, plus or minus additional variables (i.e., medial heel (Kirby) skive, the use of a University of California Biomechanical Laboratory device or a medial flange) dependent on level of disorder and plane of excessive motion.ConclusionsThis study identified consensus and agreement on a series of diagnosis methods and interventions for the paediatric flexible pes planus. A clinical protocol was developed from the resultant consensus statements which provides clinicians with a series of evidenced-informed statements to better guide them on when, how and why FOs are used specific to this population.

A clinical records audit of the University of South Australia's podiatry clinic clients attending in 2010 was undertaken to determine prevalence of symptomatic flexible pes planus, presenting reasons and treatment options most frequently used. Analysis of rearfoot measures (resting calcaneal stance position, subtalar joint range of motion) between those prescribed a vertical (heel) or inverted (heel) cast pour and a medial heel (Kirby) skive was undertaken. Of 223 clinical records audited, 50% (111/223) of clients were assessed with flexible pes planus, 77% (86/111) of clients with pes planus presented with back or lower limb pain and 58% (64/111) were prescribed customised foot orthoses. Of 42 prescriptions for customised foot orthoses audited; 64% (27/42) were prescribed a vertical (heel) cast pour, 36% (15/42) an inverted (heel) cast pour and 19% (8/42) received a medial heel (Kirby) skive. Those prescribed a medial heel (Kirby) skive had a more everted resting calcaneal stance position than those that were not (mean -8.6±2.8° vs. -5.5±3.4°, p=0.02). Those prescribed an inverted (heel) cast pour had a greater range of subtalar joint motion than those prescribed a vertical (heel) cast pour (median 36.0±10.0° vs. 29.0±5.0°, p=0.01).