Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults.

BACKGROUND: Lower-limb running injuries are common. Running shoes have been proposed as one means of reducing injury risk. However, there is uncertainty as to how effective running shoes are for the prevention of injury. It is also unclear how the effects of different characteristics of running shoes prevent injury. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of running shoes for preventing lower-limb running injuries in adult runners. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus plus trial registers WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving runners or military personnel in basic training that either compared a) a running shoe with a non-running shoe; b) different types of running shoes (minimalist, neutral/cushioned, motion control, stability, soft midsole, hard midsole); or c) footwear recommended and selected on foot posture versus footwear not recommended and not selected on foot posture for preventing lower-limb running injuries. Our primary outcomes were number of people sustaining a lower-limb running injury and number of lower-limb running injuries. Our secondary outcomes were number of runners who failed to return to running or their previous level of running, runner satisfaction with footwear, adverse events other than musculoskeletal injuries, and number of runners requiring hospital admission or surgery, or both, for musculoskeletal injury or adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the included evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials in the analysis which included a total of 11,240 participants, in trials that lasted from 6 to 26 weeks and were carried out in North America, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Most of the evidence was low or very low certainty as it was not possible to blind runners to their allocated running shoe, there was variation in the definition of an injury and characteristics of footwear, and there were too few studies for most comparisons. We did not find any trials that compared running shoes with non-running shoes. Neutral/cushioned versus minimalist (5 studies, 766 participants) Neutral/cushioned shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with minimalist shoes (low-certainty evidence) (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.01). One trial reported that 67% and 92% of runners were satisfied with their neutral/cushioned or minimalist running shoes, respectively (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.12). Another trial reported mean satisfaction scores ranged from 4.0 to 4.3 in the neutral/ cushioned group and 3.6 to 3.9 in the minimalist running shoe group out of a total of 5. Hence neutral/cushioned running shoes may make little or no difference to runner satisfaction with footwear (low-certainty evidence). Motion control versus neutral / cushioned (2 studies, 421 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral / cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.81). Soft midsole versus hard midsole (2 studies, 1095 participants) Soft midsole shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with hard midsole shoes (low-certainty of evidence) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Stability versus neutral / cushioned (1 study, 57 participants) It is uncertain whether or not stability shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral/cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.31). Motion control versus stability (1 study, 56 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with stability shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40). Running shoes prescribed and selected on foot posture (3 studies, 7203 participants) There was no evidence that running shoes prescribed based on static foot posture reduced the number of injuries compared with those who received a shoe not prescribed based on foot posture in military recruits (Rate Ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13). Subgroup analysis confirmed these findings were consistent between males and females. Therefore, prescribing running shoes and selecting on foot posture probably makes little or no difference to lower-limb running injuries (moderate-certainty evidence). Data were not available for all other review outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most evidence demonstrates no reduction in lower-limb running injuries in adults when comparing different types of running shoes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence determining whether different types of running shoes influence running injury rates was very low to low, and as such we are uncertain as to the true effects of different types of running shoes upon injury rates. There is no evidence that prescribing footwear based on foot type reduces running-related lower-limb injures in adults. The evidence for this comparison was rated as moderate and as such we can have more certainty when interpreting these findings. However, all three trials included in this comparison used military populations and as such the findings may differ in recreational runners.  Future researchers should develop a consensus definition of running shoe design to help standardise classification. The definition of a running injury should also be used consistently and confirmed via health practitioners. More researchers should consider a RCT design to increase the evidence in this area. Lastly, future work should look to explore the influence of different types or running shoes upon injury rates in specific subgroups.

Case Study: An intraoperative finding of black bone disease in a podiatric surgery patient.

Black bone disease has been recognised as a potential consequence of long-term treatment with tetracycline antibiotics. Largely documented affecting structures in the head and skull, there are few reported cases of black bone disease in the foot and ankle. The case of a 55 years old patient, who as a teenager, had undergone treatment with minocycline hydrochloride for chronic acne, and was found to have bone discolouration consistent with minocycline induced black bone disease (MIBBD) during the course of hallux valgus corrective surgery some 40 years later, is presented. In spite of the intraoperative findings, the patient's post-operative recovery and bone healing was uneventful. The literature on minocycline induced black bone disease is reviewed.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions.

BACKGROUND: Hallux valgus is classified as an abnormal deviation of the great toe (hallux) towards the midline of the foot. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate the evidence from randomised trials of interventions used to correct hallux valgus. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauama Group trials register (2003/1), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2003). No language restrictions were applied. Hand searching of specific foot journals was also undertaken.Date of the most recent search: 31st March 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of both conservative and surgical treatments of hallux valgus. Excluded were studies comparing areas of surgery not specific to the control of the deformity such as use of anaesthetics or tourniquet placement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality of trials which met the inclusion criteria was independently assessed by two reviewers. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. The trials were grouped according to the interventions being compared, but the dissimilarity in the comparisons prevented pooling of results. MAIN RESULTS: The methodological quality of the 21 included trials was generally poor and trial sizes were small.Three trials involving 332 participants evaluated conservative treatments versus no treatment. There was no evidence of a difference in outcomes between treatment and no treatment.One good quality trial involving 140 participants compared surgery to conservative treatment. Evidence was shown of an improvement in all outcomes in patients receiving chevron osteotomy compared with those receiving orthoses. The same trial also compared surgery to no treatment in 140 participants. Evidence was shown of an improvement in all outcomes in patients receiving chevron osteotomy compared with those receiving no treatment.Two trials involving 133 people with hallux valgus compared Keller's arthroplasty with other surgical techniques. In general, there was no advantage or disadvantage using Keller's over the other techniques. When the distal osteotomy was compared to Keller's arthroplasty, the osteotomy showed evidence of improving the intermetatarsal angle and preserving joint range of motion. The arthroplasty was found to have less of an impact on walking ability compared to the arthrodesis.Six trials involving 309 participants compared chevron (and chevron-type) osteotomy with other techniques. The chevron osteotomy offered no advantages in these trials. For some outcomes, other techniques gave better results. Two of these trials (94 participants) compared a type of proximal osteotomy to a proximal chevron osteotomy and found no evidence of a difference in outcomes between techniques.Three trials involving 157 participants compared outcomes between original operations and surgeon's adaptations. There was no advantage found for any of the adaptations.Three trials involving 71 people with hallux valgus compared new methods of fixation to traditional methods. There was no evidence that the new methods of fixation were detrimental to the outcome of the patients.Four trials involving 162 participants evaluated methods of post-operative rehabilitation. The use of continuous passive motion appeared to give an improved range of motion and earlier recovery following surgery. Early weightbearing or the use of a crepe bandage were not found to be detrimental to final outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only a few studies had considered conservative treatments. The evidence from these suggested that orthoses and night splints did not appear to be any more beneficial in improving outcomes than no treatment. Surgery (chevron osteotomy) was shown to be beneficial compared to orthoses or no treatment, but when compared to other osteotomies, no technique was shown to be superior to any other. Only one trial had compared an osteotomy to an arthroplasty. There was limited evidence to suggest that the osteotomy gave the better outcomes. It was notable that the numbers of participants in some trials remaining dissatisfied at follow-up were consistently high (25 to 33%), even when the hallux valgus angle and pain had improved. A few of the more recent trials used assessment scores that combine several aspects of the patients outcomes. These scoring systems are useful to the clinician when comparing techniques but are of dubious relevance to the patient if they do not address their main concern and such scoring systems are frequently unvalidated. Only one study simply asked the patient if they were better than before the treatment. Final outcomes were most frequently measured at one year, with a few trials maintaining follow-up for 3 years. Such time-scales are minimal given that the patients will be on their feet for at least another 20-30 years after treatment. Future research should include patient-focused outcomes, standardised assessment criteria and longer surveillance periods, more usefully in the region of 5-10 years.

Examining the validity of selected measures of foot type: a preliminary study.

The rationale that subtalar joint position, reflected by calcaneal alignment, determines foot morphology was used to formulate an approach to examination of the validity of three measures of "foot type": the Staheli Arch Index, the Chippaux-Smirak Index, and navicular height. Each measure was calculated in five positions, progressively inverting from a reference position of maximal comfortable eversion. Pearson product moment correlations (Staheli Arch Index: r = 0.5; Chippaux-Smirak Index: r = 0.6; and navicular height: r = 0.8) indicated that each measure progressively increased with inversion. The change in calcaneal position required to produce significant changes in each measure was investigated using analysis of variance with Scheffé post hoc analysis. This analysis revealed that changes of 15 degrees and 20 degrees were required to produce significant differences in Chippaux-Smirak Index and Staheli Arch Index scores, respectively, threatening their validity. Navicular height was sensitive to smaller changes of 10 degrees and thus displays greater sensitivity to changes in calcaneal position than the footprint parameters tested.