Authors
- Paton, Joanne BSc, MSc, PhD
- Collings, Richard BSc (Hons) MSc
- Glasser, Sam BSc (Hons)
- Kent, Bridie RN, BSc (Hons), PhD
Abstract
Review question/objective: The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effects (positive and negative) of foot and ankle devices on: 1) balance, 2) gait, and 3) falls in adults with sensory perception loss. The results of this review will be used to inform the development of an insole for people at increased risk of falls due to diabetic neuropathy.
More specifically the review will synthesize the best available evidence regarding: a) the effect of foot and ankle devices (including footwear, insoles and ankle foot orthosis) on any clinical or laboratory measure of balance and gait in adults with sensory perception loss; and b) the effect of foot and ankle devices (including footwear, insoles and ankle foot orthosis) on any measure of fall frequency or incidence in adults with sensory perception loss.
Background: It is reported that as people age, postural control declines.1,2 This has been attributed in part to reduced somatosensory input including visual, proprioceptive and vestibular information, and musculoskeletal change, for example, lower limb muscle weakness.3 These changes, which are common in the elderly population, are accelerated in adults with sensory perception loss,3,4 further increasing their risk of falls and injury.5-7 Sensory perception loss is commonly associated with a number of chronic conditions including alcoholism, vitamin B12 deficiency, autoimmune disease and diabetes.8 Diabetes is the most common cause of sensory perception loss, with peripheral neuropathy affecting up to 50% of those with the condition.9
Falls are a major concern for adults with sensory perception loss. Most falls occur during weight bearing activities and are preventable.7 One potential modifiable external risk factor for falls is the interface between the foot and supporting surface. This interface most often takes the form of footwear or insoles, but can also include the supporting surface material if barefoot.10 It is reported that 75% of people who experience a falls-related hip fracture are wearing inappropriate footwear.11 Any device that comes in contact with the foot or ankle including footwear and insoles has the potential to increase or reduce the risk of falls.
Adults with sensory perception loss, particularly those with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, are at increased risk of developing foot ulceration.12 Therefore it is common practice within the clinical environment to provide people with peripheral neuropathy with therapeutic footwear and insoles as a means of reducing plantar loads and foot ulcer risk whilst walking.13 The provision of footwear and insoles for people with diabetic neuropathy is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and a Cochrane review of the literature.14,15 This best available evidence investigating the effectiveness of footwear and insoles for people with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy has until now focused entirely on ulcer prevention with no consideration given to the possible secondary effect on balance or falls risk.13,15 One aim of this proposed review is to raise awareness of the issue of balance and falls risk for consideration among professionals tasked with prescribing footwear and insoles to people with sensory perception loss.
Insoles and ankle foot orthosis contained within shoes are known to alter gait kinetics and kinematics.16,17 Whilst the mechanism of influence is unclear, favored theories take either a mechanical or sensory approach. The mechanoreceptors found in the plantar surface of the foot provide important pressure sensory mapping information about changes in pressure related to body position. This sensory threshold is reduced in older people18,19 and further compromised in those with sensory perception loss.3,20 Insoles are the interface between the plantar foot and floor. They are well placed to modify the transmitted sensory information, to dampen or enhance any remaining sensory feedback.21 The shoe, or alternatively an ankle foot orthosis, forms an envelope around the foot to provide a dynamic structural housing within which locomotion can occur. This housing can restrict or facilitate joint motion, generating a mechanical influence on lower limb muscle and foot function that could in turn affect lower limb stability and balance.22 Whilst this review does not aim to focus on the mechanism of influence by which insoles, footwear or other similar devices may affect balance control, an analysis of studies recruiting participants with known sensory deficit may determine if there is a pathology -specific change in the contribution of this mechanical versus sensory control.
An initial search of literature identified three reviews with a focus on the effect of footwear and orthisis on balance in older people.10,23,24 Electronic databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE (OVID) and CINAHL, AMED (EBSCO), JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, from inception to 2013. A further search of grey literature including government documents, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and a thesis database (http://www.thesis.com) was conducted. Initial MESH and key terms used related to foot orthosis and insoles, footwear and shoes, ankle foot orthosis and ankle braces, postural balance and body sway, gait and walking pattern, stabilizing and destabilizing, accidental falls, older persons, nervous system disorders, diabetes and neuropathy.
Table 1 presents a comparison of the existing reviews including details of review objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strategy and critical appraisal tools used. The first, a systematic review considered papers published up to the end of 2004.23 The review included a broad participant population of older people and those with peripheral nervous system disorders.23 This strategy highlights the clinical relevance of balance deficits in people with peripheral nervous system disorder, but acknowledges the lack of primary research incorporating this patient group at the time of the review. Another review considered studies investigating the effect of insoles on balance performance and gait in an effort to theorize on the mechanism by which insoles influence balance.24 This review included participants over 60 years of age without differentiation between healthy individuals and those with pathological conditions known to affect balance.24 The authors excluded studies testing lower limb interventions other than insoles and included only laboratory-based outcome measures of balance.24 The resulting report provides a proof of concept summary, with limited transferability to clinical practice. The final systematic review focused on the effect of different footwear features on balance and falls risk in the older population.10 This review excluded studies investigating therapeutic footwear (commonly provided to people with neuropathy) or populations with a specific medical condition.10 Despite the clinical relevance of sensory perception loss, none of the reviews have to date provided evidence pertinent to this patient group. In the real world setting, insoles and other foot and ankle devices are worn inside footwear to function as a single unit to exert an influence on balance and falls risk. Clinically it is ill-advised to prescribe a foot orthosis without also considering how the footwear within which the orthosis will be contained may affect balance and falls risk. Therefore whilst other reviews have been limited to one category of intervention, this proposed review will include all foot and ankle devices and footwear with the aim of increasing the usefulness and relevance of the review results to the treatment approach for the target population.
Studies investigating the effects of insoles, footwear and other foot and ankle devices on balance, fall into two categories. Those using laboratory outcome measures of balance24 and those using clinical based measures of balance or mobility.25,26,27 This review will consider both categories of outcome measures as having predictive relevance to falls risk.
It is commonly accepted that body oscillations during normal quiet standing are indicative of postural stability.28,29 Smaller amplitudes and lower speeds of body sway are considered representative of better postural stability in terms of less effort needed to maintain posture.28 The force platform method of using centre of pressure amplitude and speed as a measure of body sway during quiet standing has been previously used to evaluate the effect of insoles and footwear on the postural control in static conditions.24 Traditional sway parameters include velocity of Centre of Pressure (CoP) displacement (m/s). In a review of stability parameters, velocity of CoP displacement was shown to be the best consistent measure of differences between interventions.29 Other relevant measures of balance traditionally used in trials to predict falls included mean speed and amplitude of movement of the centre of pressure in both the medial lateral and anterior posterior directions.28
A number of alternative approaches have been developed to enable clinicians to measure balance and falls risk in the real world clinical setting.30-31 Most of these tests involve challenging postural control in a way that is representative of day-to-day tasks to give an indication of an individual's falls risk whilst undertaking activities of daily living. Examples of commonly used balance tests include functional reach and the berg balance scale.30-31 The functional reach test requires the participant to stand with their arms positioned at 90 degrees to their body and the distance they are able to reach forward is then measured.30 This test is a predictor of falls and sensitive to change following the introduction of an intervention.32-33 The berg balance scale incorporates 14 tasks such as sit to stand, single leg stance and turning 360 degrees.31 The subject's ability to complete each task is scored 0 to 4 with a maximum score of 56 representing good balance.31 There is mixed evidence to suggest that the berg balance scale is predictive of falls.34 Changes in gait have been associated with falls particularly in the older population.1 Older fallers have been found to adopt a more conservative gait pattern involving reduced velocity and step length, greater step-to-step variability and stance width.1 The spatio-tempero parameters of gait are therefore commonly used as an outcome measure in intervention studies intended to reduce the risk of falling.26,35,36 This review will also therefore consider spatio-tempero parameters of gait as a relevant outcome measure.
The results of this review will be used to inform the design and development of a balance enhancing insole for people with diabetes and neuropathy. An initial search of literature identified a limited number of relatively small-scale studies involving participants with diabetes and neuropathy. Whilst falls are recognised as a concern for this patient group, prevention of foot ulceration is a topic that until recently has taken priority for researchers working in the area of diabetic foot care. Therefore the scope of the review will be expanded to include studies recruiting from the wider insensate population. Balance, mobility and falls are of primary importance for this wider population, and a number of relevant published studies are available for review.36-41 In the first instance the information gained from this review will be used to consider the possible effect of current diabetic insole design on balance and falls risk in people with sensory perception loss. Then the type of insole and footwear shown to enhance balance or reduce falls risk within those with sensory perception loss will be reviewed to inform the development of the new insole design.
Defining the type of footwear or insoles that contribute to falling or influence gait and balance in adults with sensory perception loss will offer direction to future research and guide therapeutic footwear and insole provision.
Article Content
Inclusion criteria
Types of participants
This review will consider studies that include community dwelling adults over the age of 18 years with sensory perception loss free from foot ulceration at the time of the study. Studies examining people with foot ulceration will be excluded from the review. Studies examining participants from hospitals or care homes will be excluded from the review. Studies examining participants with an upper motor neuron injury (stroke survivors) will be excluded from the review.
Types of intervention(s)
This review will consider studies that evaluate the effect of any foot or ankle device on balance, gait or falls in adults with sensory perception loss living in the community. Foot or ankle devices will be defined as any device placed in direct contact with the foot or ankle. This will include therapeutic and non-therapeutic footwear, insoles designed to increase mechanical support and afferent sensory feedback, ankle foot orthosis and ankle braces used to restrict joint motion,
In this review, studies that include industrial safety footwear or foot ulcer offloading devices as an intervention will be excluded.
In this review, studies will be included if they make one of the following comparisons:
1. Foot or ankle device with another foot or ankle device
2. Foot or ankle device with no intervention
Types of outcomes
This review will consider:
* Any measure of falls frequency or incidence.
* Any standardized clinical or laboratory patient-based measure of balance such as (but not limited to) the Berg balance scale, functional reach, tandem stance and postural sway, including centre of pressure excursion and velocity.
* Any standardized clinical laboratory or patient-based measure of gait such as (but not limited to) walking speed/velocity, stance time, step width, step variability and timed up and go.
Types of studies
The review will consider both experimental and epidemiological study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control studies and analytical cross sectional studies for inclusion.
It will exclude descriptive epidemiological study designs including case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross sectional studies.
Search strategy
The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. A three-step search strategy will be utilized in this review. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe article. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference list of all identified reports and articles will be searched for additional studies. Studies published in English will be considered for inclusion in this review. Studies published from databases inception to 2014 will be considered for inclusion in this review.
The databases to be searched include:
MEDLINE, EMBASE (OVID), The Cochrane central register of controlled trials CINAHL, AMED (EBSCO).
The search for unpublished studies will include:
BIOSIS Previews; ZETOC; Conference Papers Index, Google Scholar and EThOS
Initial keywords to be used will be:
Foot orthosis; insoles; inlay; insert; footwear; shoes; ankle foot orthosis; ankle brace; postural balance; body sway; centre of pressure; gait; walking pattern; stabilising; destabilising; accidental falls; fall; falls; fallers; fallen; aged; senior; elder; older; old; oldest
An example of the search strategy for Medline and Embase is included below
1. "EXP Foot orthosis/"
2. (Insole$1 or Inlay$1 or Insert$1).ti,ab
3. (footwear or shoe$1).ti,ab
4. (Ankle adj3 OR foot adj3) AND (ortho$ OR brace$).ti,ab
5. 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4
6. "EXP Postural balance/"
7. Posture.ti,ab
8. Body adj3 sway OR balance OR Cent$ of pressure OR COP.ti,ab
9. Stabilising OR Destabilising .ti,ab
10. Gait OR (walking adj3 pattern) .ti,ab
11. 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10
12. Accidental Falls/
13. (fall OR falls OR faller$ OR fallen).ti,ab.
14. 12 OR 13
15. 11 or 14
16. EXP nervous system disorders/
17. Diabet$ or neuropath$ or (Multiple adj Scerosis) or (Parkinsons adj Disease)
18. 16 OR 17
19. 5 AND 15 AND 18
Assessment of methodological quality
Papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardised critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) (Appendix I ). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.
Data collection
Data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardised data extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI (Appendix II ). The data extracted will include specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives.
Data synthesis
Quantitative data will, where possible be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using JBI-MAStARI. All results will be subject to double data entry. Effect sizes expressed as odds ratio (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed statistically using the standard Chi-square and also explored using subgroup analyses based on the different study designs included in this review. Where statistical pooling is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation where appropriate.
Conflicts of interest
There is no conflict of interest to declare.
Acknowledgements
This proposed review protocol is independent research arising from a National Institute for Health Research Clinical Academic Training (NIHR CAT) Clinical Lectureship Fellowship supported by NIHR.
The content presents independent research funded by NIHR. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health.
References
1. Lord SR, Sherrington C, Menz HB, Close J. Falls in older people: Risk factors and strategies for prevention. 2nd Ed London: Cambridge University Press UK. 2007. [Context Link]
2. Judge JO, King MB, Whipple R, Clive J, Wolfson LI. Dynamic balance in older persons: effects of reduced visual and proprioceptive input. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995; 50 (5): M263-279. [Context Link]
3. Vinik AI, Holland AT, Le Beau JM, Liuzzi FJ, Stansberry KB, Colen LB. Diabetic Neuropathies. Diabetic Care. 1992;15:1926-1975. [Context Link]
4. Richardson JK, Hurvitz EA. Peripheral Neuropathy: A True Risk Factor for Falls. J Gerontol. 1995; 50A (4): M211-M215. [Context Link]
5. Cavanagh P, Derr J, Ulbrecht S, Maser R, Orchard J. Problems with gait and posture in neuropathic patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 1992; 9: 469-474. [Context Link]
6. Ducic I, Short KW, Dellon AL. Relationship between loss of pedal sensibility, balance, and falls in patients with peripheral neuropathy. Ann Plast Surg. 2004; 52 (6): 535-540. [Context Link]
7. Tilling L, Darawil K, Britton M. Falls as a complication of diabetes mellitus in older people. J Diabetes Complications. 2006; 20: 158-162. [Context Link]
8. Mold JW, Vesley SK, Keyl BA, Schenk JB, Roberts M. The prevalence, predictors, and consequences of peripheral sensory neuropathy in older patients. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004; 17:309-18. [Context Link]
9. Young MJ, Boulton AJM, Macleaod AF, Williams DDR, Sonkesn PH. A multicentre study of the prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the United Kingdom hospital population. Diabetologia. 1993; 36: 150-54. [Context Link]
10. Menant JC, Steele JR, Menz HB, Munro BJ, Lord SR. Optimizing footwear for older people at risk of falls. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008; 45 (8): 1167-1182. [Context Link]
11. Sherrington CI, Menz HB. An evaluation of footwear worn at the time of fall-related hip fracture. Age Ageing. 2003; 32: 310-14. [Context Link]
12. Baba m, Davis WA, Davis TM. A longitudinal study of foot ulceration and its risk factors in community-based patients with type 2 diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014; 106 (1): 42-49. [Context Link]
13. Paton J, Bruce G, Jones R, Stenhouse E. Effectiveness of insoles used for the prevention of ulceration in the neuropathic diabetic foot: a systematic review. J Diabetes Complications. 2011; 25 (1): 52-62. [Context Link]
14. NICE Clinical Guideline 10. Prevention and management of foot problems in people with type 2 diabetes. 2004. [Context Link]
15. Spencer S. Pressure relieving interventions for preventing and treating diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2000; 3: [Context Link]
16. Nester CJ, Hutchins S, Bowker P. Effect of foot orthoses on rearfoot complex kinematics during walking gait. Foot and Ankle Int. 2001; 22 (2): 133-139. [Context Link]
17. Paton J, Bruce G, Stenhouse E, Zahra D, Jones R. A comparison of customised and prefabricated insoles to reduce risk factors for neuropathic diabetic foot ulceration: a participant-blinded randomised controlled trial. J Foot and Ankle Res. 2012; 5 (1): 31. [Context Link]
18. Jeng C, Michelson J, Mizel M. Sensory thresholds of normal human feet. Foot Ankle Int. 2000; 21 (6): 501-503. [Context Link]
19. McCarthy KA. Peripheral neuropathy in the aging patient: common causes, assessment, and risks. Topics in Clinical Chiropractic. 1999; 6 (4): 56-61. [Context Link]
20. Reid KS, Martin BD, Duerksen F, Nicolle LE, Garrett M, Simonsen, JN et al. Diabetic foot complications in a northern Canadian Aboriginal community. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27 (12): 1065-1073. [Context Link]
21. Losa Iglesias M, Becerro de Bengoa VR, Palacios Pena, D. Impact of soft and hard insole density on postural stability in older adults. Geriatric Nurs. 2012; 33 (4): 264-271. [Context Link]
22. Horgan NF, Crehan F, Bartlett E, Keogan F, O'Grady AM, Moore AR et al. The effects of usual footwear on balance amongst elderly women attending a day hospital. Age Aging. 2009; 38: 62-67. [Context Link]
23. Hijmans M, Geertzen J HB, Dijkstra PU, Postema K. A systematic review of the effects of shoes and other ankle or foot appliances on balance in older people and people with peripheral nervous system disorders. Gait Posture. 2007; 25: 316-323. [Context Link]
24. Hatton AL, Rome K, Dixon J, Martin D, O. McKeon P. Footwear interventions: A review of their sensorimotor and mechanical effects on balance performance and gait in older adults. J Am Podiatri Med Assoc. 2013; 103 (6): 516-533. [Context Link]
25. Tencer AF, Koepsell TD, Wolf ME, Frankenfeld CL, Buchner DM, Kukull WA et al. Biomechanical properties of shoes and risk of falls in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004; 52 (11):1840-1846 [Context Link]
26. Hartmann A, Murer K, de Bie RA, de Bruin ED. The effect of a training program combined with augmented afferent feedback from the feet using shoe insoles on gait performance and muscle power in older adults: a randomised controlled trial. Disabil Rehabi. 2010; 32 (9): 755-764 [Context Link]
27. de Morais Barbosa C, Barros Bertolo M, Marques Neto JF, Bellini Coimbra I, Davitt M, de Paiva Magalhaes E. The effect of foot orthoses on balance, foot pain and disability in elderly women with osteoporosis: a randomized clinical trial. Rheumatology. 2013; 52 (3): 515-522. [Context Link]
28. Piirtola M1, Era P. Force platform measurements as predictors of falls among older people - a review. Gerontology. 2006; 52 (1): 1-16. [Context Link]
29. Raymakers JA, Samson MM, Verhaar HJ. The assessment of body sway and the choice of the stability parameter(s). Gait Posture. 2005; 21 (1): 48-58. [Context Link]
30. Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional Reach: a new clinical measure. J Gerontol. 1990; 45: M192-97 [Context Link]
31. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can. 1989; 41 (6): 304-311. [Context Link]
32. Duncan PW, Studenski SA, Chandler J, Prescott B. Functional reach: predictive validity in a sampleof elderly male veterans. J Gerontol. 1992; 47: M93-98. [Context Link]
33. Weiner DK, Boniorni DR, Studenski SA, Buncan PW, Kochersberger GG. Does functional reach improve with rehabilitation? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993; 74: 796-800. [Context Link]
34. Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Interpreting validity indexes for diagnostic tests: an illustration using the Berg balance test. Phys Ther. 1999; 79: 1177-1185. [Context Link]
35. Galica AM, Kang HG, Priplata AA, D'Andrea SE, Starobinets OV, Sorond FA et al. Subsensory vibrations to the feet reduce gait variability in elderly fallers. Gait Posture. 2009; 30 (3): 383-387. [Context Link]
36. Perry SD, Radtke A, McIlroy WE, Fernie GR, Maki BE. Efficacy and effectiveness of a balance-enhancing insole. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008; 63 (6): 595-602. [Context Link]
37. Hijmans JM, Geertzen JH, Zijlstra W, Hof AL, Postema K. Effects of vibrating insoles on standing balance in diabetic neuropathy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008; 45 (9): 1441-1449. [Context Link]
38. Priplata AA, Patritti BL, Niemi JB, Hughes R, Gravelle DC, Lipsitz LA et al. Noise-enhanced balance control in patients with diabetes and patients with stroke. Ann Neurol. 2006; 59 (1): 4-12. [Context Link]
39. J Richardson JK, Thies SB, DeMott TK, Ashton-Miller JA. Interventions improve gait regularity in patients with peripheral neuropathy while walking on an irregular surface under low light. Am Geriatr Soc. 2004; 52 (4): 510-5. [Context Link]
40. Son J, Ashton-Miller JA, Richardson JK. Do ankle orthoses improve ankle proprioceptive thresholds or unipedal balance in older persons with peripheral neuropathy? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 89 (5): 369-75. [Context Link]
41. Van Geffen JA, Dijkstra PU, Hof AL, Halbertsma JP, Postema K. Effect of flat insoles with different Shore A values on posture stability in diabetic neuropathy. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007 Sep; 31 (3): 228-35. [Context Link]
Appendix I: Appraisal instruments
MAStARI appraisal instrument[Context Link]
Appendix II: Data extraction instruments
MAStARI data extraction instrument[Context Link]
Keywords: Foot orthosis; insoles; inlay; insert; footwear; shoes; ankle foot orthosis; ankle brace; postural balance; body sway; centre of pressure; gait; walking pattern; stabilising; destabilising; accidental falls; fall; falls; fallers; fallen; aged; senior; elder; older; old; oldest