Early functional outcome of two different orthotic concepts in ankle sprains: a randomized controlled trial

Best, Raymond; Böhle, Caroline; Schiffer, Thorsten; Petersen, Wolf; Ellermann, Andree; Brueggemann, Gert Peter; Liebau, Christian

doi:10.1007/s00402-015-2230-x

Cited by 12 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The differences between the two intervention groups in the study [24] were marginal but suggest that patients with a severe ankle sprain (Grade II or III) may benefit from a phase adaptable ankle brace, such as the Ortho Tri-Phase TM . The different configurations of semi-rigid adaptable orthoses allow for successive increases of ligament loading during the recovery process, initially protecting from inversion to prevent chronic elongation of the ligaments, and subsequently, increasing the stretch-induced stress to promote proper collagen fiber orientation and avoid the harmful effects of immobilization [5,24,25]. Specifically, the exo-carbon joint support of the Ortho Tri-Phase TM is removed in Phase 3 and should allow unrestricted movement in the sagittal plane and increased RoM in the frontal plane.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In previous work, a prospective randomized controlled trial in 47 patients with acute ankle sprain Grade II demonstrated faster functional recovery (i.e., agility tests and activity levels) with a semi-rigid adaptable ankle brace (Malleo TriStep TM by Otto Bock) in comparison to a non-adaptable ankle brace (Aircast TM Air-Stirrup by DJO Global) [24]. The differences between the two intervention groups in the study [24] were marginal but suggest that patients with a severe ankle sprain (Grade II or III) may benefit from a phase adaptable ankle brace, such as the Ortho Tri-Phase TM . The different configurations of semi-rigid adaptable orthoses allow for successive increases of ligament loading during the recovery process, initially protecting from inversion to prevent chronic elongation of the ligaments, and subsequently, increasing the stretch-induced stress to promote proper collagen fiber orientation and avoid the harmful effects of immobilization [5,24,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Restrictions in the Ankle Sagittal- and Frontal-Plane Range of Movement during Simulated Walking with Different Types of Orthoses

Thiele¹,

Schuhmacher²,

Schwaller³

et al. 2018

JFMK

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different types of orthoses are available to clinicians for non-surgical treatment of acute ankle sprains. The goal of this study was to scientifically compare the movement restrictions in the sagittal and frontal plane during simulated walking between one adaptable semi-rigid brace (OrthoTri-Phase TM), four non-adaptable semi-rigid braces (OrthoStandard TM , MalleoLoc TM , MalleoSprint TM , VACOankle TM), and one rigid cast. Predefined time sequences of rotational moments and axial loading during gait were applied via an ankle joint simulator, with the pneumatic pressure inside the orthoses kept constant to ensure the same condition for different trials and orthoses. The peak ranges of motion (RoMs) in the frontal and sagittal plane during gait were analyzed for statistically significant differences using single-factorial ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni analysis. Significant differences in peak plantar-/dorsiflexion and in-/eversion RoM during gait were found between different types of orthoses. In the sagittal plane, the rigid cast most significantly restricted overall RoM followed by the Ortho Tri-Phase TM in Phase 1 and the Ortho Standard TM. The peak restriction in-/eversion RoM of the VACOankle TM came closest to the rigid cast, with a shift towards inversion. The VACOankle TM allowed for significantly larger dorsiflexion movement compared to all other orthoses. The present results may help clinicians in the decision-making process of finding the optimal orthosis for individual patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Restrictions in the Ankle Sagittal- and Frontal-Plane Range of Movement during Simulated Walking with Different Types of Orthoses

Thiele¹,

Schuhmacher²,

Schwaller³

et al. 2018

JFMK

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 77 potentially trials were identified. We excluded a total of 16 studies on acute or sub-acute ankle injury [ 19 – 34 ] and 28 studies on non-surgical treatments [ 35 – 62 ]. The remaining 33 studies were eligible for further analysis (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical management of chronic lateral ankle instability: a meta-analysis

Cao¹,

Yuan²,

Xu³

et al. 2018

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA key point to surgical treatment of chronic lateral ankle instability is choosing a suitable surgical procedure. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare different surgical techniques for management of chronic lateral ankle instability.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. All identified randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of operative treatment for chronic lateral ankle instability were included. Two review authors independently extracted data from each study and assessed risk of bias. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled.ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials were included for analysis. They fell in five clearly distinct groups.One study comparing two different kinds of non-anatomic reconstruction procedures (dynamic and static tenodesis) found two clinical outcomes favoring static tenodesis: better clinical satisfaction and fewer subsequent sprains.Two studies compared non-anatomic reconstruction versus anatomic repairment. In one study, nerve damage was more frequent in non-anatomic reconstruction group; the other one reported that radiological measurement of ankle laxity showed that non-anatomic reconstruction provided higher reduction of talar tilt angle.Two studies comparing two anatomic repairment surgical techniques (transosseous suture versus imbrication) showed no significant difference in any clinical outcome at the follow-up except operation time.One study compared two different anatomic repairment techniques. They found that the double anchor technique was superior with respect to the reduction of talar tilt than single anchor technique.One study compared an anatomic reconstruction procedure with a modified Brostrom technique. Primary reconstruction combined with ligament advanced reinforcement system results in better patient-scored clinical outcome, at 2 years post-surgery, than the modified Brostrom procedure.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence to support any one surgical technique over another surgical technique for chronic lateral ankle instability, but based on the evidence, we could still get some conclusions: (1) There are limitations to the use of dynamic tenodesis, which obtained poor clinical satisfaction and more subsequent sprains. (2) Non-anatomic reconstruction abnormally increased inversion stiffness at the subtalar level as compare with anatomic repairment. (3) Multiple types of modified Brostrom procedures could acquire good clinical results. (4) Anatomic reconstruction is a better procedure for some specific patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13018-018-0870-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…All three studies for which data was extracted used the FAOS as an outcome measure [ 212 , 213 , 216 ]. This scale normally uses an increase in score to signify an improvement (100 indicates no problems and 0 indicates extreme problems), however Best et al [ 213 ] reported improvements with decreasing scores. No differences were evident between the interventions in any of these three studies ( S4 File ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAssistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world’s population need a prosthesis or orthosis.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.MethodsLiterature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis.ResultsA total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible.ConclusionsAt present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

Early functional outcome of two different orthotic concepts in ankle sprains: a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 12 publications

References 28 publications

Restrictions in the Ankle Sagittal- and Frontal-Plane Range of Movement during Simulated Walking with Different Types of Orthoses

Restrictions in the Ankle Sagittal- and Frontal-Plane Range of Movement during Simulated Walking with Different Types of Orthoses

Surgical management of chronic lateral ankle instability: a meta-analysis

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About