Determining Leg Dominance Using the Unipedal Stance Test (UPST)

Purpose: To determine whether the kicking leg or stance leg as determined by the Ball Kicking test results in a longer unipedal stance time as determined by the UPST. Subjects: Forty-two healthy subjects (13 male, 29 female, mean age 26) with no history of lower limb pathology or balance impairments. Materials and Methods: Subjects completed the Ball Kicking test and three trials of the UPST in a single session. Results: UPST times were compared between the best trials of the stance and kicking legs with a significant difference found. Fifty percent of participants (21/42) maintained longer single limb stance times on the stance leg, as determined by the Ball Kicking test. Conclusions: This study suggests that young, healthy adults demonstrated a selective limb preference for stability tasks compared to mobility tasks related to improved stability and control. The stance limb, as determined by the Ball Kicking test, may be more adept at static balance compared to the kicking limb, which may challenge the currently-utilized concept of leg dominance. Clinical Relevance: While it is widely assumed that the leg a person kicks with may be more proficient for functional activities that require strength, speed, and coordination activities, this study shows that the stance leg is actually more proficient during a static balance activity such as standing on one leg. This suggests the Ball Kicking test may be used to determine mobility and stability legs when teaching or performing functional activities such as a step-to pattern ascending and descending stairs

What kind of sick person would see a Foot Doctor! The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS) [Conference Abstract]

Background Many different guidelines recommend people with foot complications, or those at risk, should attend multiple health professionals for foot care each year. However, few studies have investigated the characteristics of those attending health professionals for foot care and if those characteristics match those requiring foot care as per guideline recommendations. The aim of this paper was to determine the associated characteristics of people who attended a health professional for foot care in the year prior to their hospitalisation. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. Participants underwent a foot examination to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, foot complication history, and, past health professional attendance for foot care in the year prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Two hundred and fifty-six (34.9% (95% CI) (31.6-38.4)) participants had attended a health professional for foot care; including attending podiatrists 180 (24.5%), GPs 93 (24.6%), and surgeons 36 (4.9%). In backwards stepwise multivariate analyses attending any health professional for foot care was independently associated (OR (95% CI)) with diabetes (3.0 (2.1-4.5)), arthritis (1.8 (1.3-2.6)), mobility impairment (2.0 (1.4-2.9)) and previous foot ulcer (5.4 (2.9-10.0)). Attending a podiatrist was independently associated with female gender (2.6 (1.7-3.9)), increasing years of age (1.06 (1.04-1.08), diabetes (5.0 (3.2-7.9)), arthritis (2.0 (1.3-3.0)), hypertension (1.7 (1.1-2.6) and previous foot ulcer (4.5 (2.4-8.1). While attending a GP was independently associated with having a foot ulcer (10.4 (5.6-19.2). Conclusions Promisingly these findings indicate that people with a diagnosis of diabetes and arthritis are more likely to attend health professionals for foot care. However, it also appears those with active foot complications, or significant risk factors, may not be more likely to receive the multi-disciplinary foot care recommended by guidelines. More concerted efforts are required to ensure all people with foot complications are receiving recommended foot care

Prevalence of foot disease and risk factors in general inpatient populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To systematically review studies reporting the prevalence in general adult inpatient populations of foot disease disorders (foot wounds, foot infections, collective ‘foot disease’) and risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity). Methods: A systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2013 was undertaken using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). Keywords and synonyms relating to prevalence, inpatients, foot disease disorders and risk factors were used. Studies reporting foot disease or risk factor prevalence data in general inpatient populations were included. Included study's reference lists and citations were searched and experts consulted to identify additional relevant studies. 2 authors, blinded to each other, assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Applicable data were extracted by 1 author and checked by a second author. Prevalence proportions and SEs were calculated for all included studies. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects models where 3 eligible studies were available. Results: Of the 4972 studies initially identified, 78 studies reporting 84 different cohorts (total 60 231 517 participants) were included. Foot disease prevalence included: foot wounds 0.01–13.5% (70 cohorts), foot infections 0.05–6.4% (7 cohorts), collective foot disease 0.2–11.9% (12 cohorts). Risk factor prevalence included: PAD 0.01–36.0% (10 cohorts), PN 0.003–2.8% (6 cohorts), foot deformity was not reported. Pooled prevalence estimates were only able to be calculated for pressure ulcer-related foot wounds 4.6% (95% CI 3.7% to 5.4%)), diabetes-related foot wounds 2.4% (1.5% to 3.4%), diabetes-related foot infections 3.4% (0.2% to 6.5%), diabetes-related foot disease 4.7% (0.3% to 9.2%). Heterogeneity was high in all pooled estimates (I2=94.2–97.8%, p<0.001). Conclusions: This review found high heterogeneity, yet suggests foot disease was present in 1 in every 20 inpatients and a major risk factor in 1 in 3 inpatients. These findings are likely an underestimate and more robust studies are required to provide more precise estimates

Foot-related conditions in hospitalised populations: A literature review

Free to read Background: No reviews have investigated foot-related conditions prevalence in hospitalised populations. This literature review reports foot-related conditions (foot wounds, foot infections, amputations, other) and foot risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity) prevalence in representative or specific hospitalised populations. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for publications between 1980 and 2011. Keywords and synonyms relating to foot-related conditions, foot risk factors, inpatients and prevalence were used. Studies reporting any foot-related conditions or foot risk factor prevalence in representative or specific hospitalised populations were included, and data were extracted. Results: Of 3,297 records identified, 141 studies were included; 27 in representative and 114 specific inpatients. Foot wound prevalence was: 0.9-8.3% in representative and 0.1-96.4% specific inpatients; foot infection: 0.1-1.1% representative inpatients; amputation: 0.1-1.5% representative, 0.2-82.5% specific inpatients; PAD: 2.1-25.0% representative, 9.0-72.0 specific inpatients; and PN: 0.2-100% specific inpatients. Conclusions: This review suggests foot wounds are the main foot-related condition in hospitalised populations. Indications are up to 25% of representative inpatients have a foot risk factor for a foot wound, up to 8% have a foot wound and up to 1.5% an amputation. These rates were higher in specific inpatients, particularly inpatients with chronic disease and major trauma

Interventions for increasing ankle joint dorsiflexion : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Ankle joint equinus, or restricted dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM), has been linked to a range of pathologies of relevance to clinical practitioners. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of conservative interventions on ankle joint ROM in healthy individuals and athletic populations.\ud \ud METHODS: Keyword searches of Embase Medline Cochrane and CINAHL databases were performed with the final search being run in August 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the effect of a non-surgical intervention on ankle joint dorsiflexion in healthy populations. Studies were quality rated using a standard quality assessment scale. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and results were pooled where study methods were homogenous.\ud \ud RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met eligibility criteria, with a total of 734 study participants. Results suggest that there is some evidence to support the efficacy of static stretching alone (SMDs: range 0.70 to 1.69) and static stretching in combination with ultrasound (SMDs: range 0.91 to 0.95), diathermy (SMD 1.12), diathermy and ice (SMD 1.16), heel raise exercises (SMDs: range 0.70 to 0.77), superficial moist heat (SMDs: range 0.65 to 0.84) and warm up (SMD 0.87) in improving ankle joint dorsiflexion ROM.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: Some evidence exists to support the efficacy of stretching alone and stretching in combination with other therapies in increasing ankle joint ROM in healthy individuals. There is a paucity of quality evidence to support the efficacy of other non-surgical interventions, thus further research in this area is warranted

How many inpatients in our hospitals have foot complications? The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study [Conference Abstract]

Background Foot complications have been found to affect large proportions of hospital in patients with diabetes. However, no studies have investigated the proportion of foot complications affecting all people in general inpatient populations. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to investigate the point-prevalence of different foot complications in general inpatient populations, analyse differences in diabetes and non-diabetes sub-groups, and examine characteristics of people primarily admitted for a foot complication. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. All participants underwent a physical foot examination, by trained podiatrists using validated measures, to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including foot wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and peripheral neuropathy (PN). Data were also collected on participants' primary reason for admission and a range of demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot complication history, self-care and footwear risk factors. Results Overall, 733 participants consented (83% of eligible participants); mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 480 (55.8%) male and 172 (23.5%) had diabetes. Foot complication prevalence included: wounds 9.0% (95% CI) (5.1-8.7), infections 3.3% (2.2-4.9), deformity 22.4% (19.5-26.7), PAD 21.0% (18.2-24.1) and PN 22.0% (19.1-25.1). Diabetes populations had significantly more foot complications than non-diabetes (p < 0.01); wounds (15.7% vs 7.0%), infections (7.1% vs 2.2%), deformity (30.5% vs 19.9%), PAD (35.1% vs 16.7%) and PN (43.3% vs 15.4%). Foot complications were the primary reason for admission in 7.4% (95% CI) (5.7-9.5) of all participants. In a backwards stepwise multivariate analysis having a foot complication as the primary reason for admission was independently associated (OR (95% CI) with foot wounds (18.9 (7.3-48.7)), foot infections (6.0 (1.6-22.4)), history of amputation (4.7 (1.3-17.0) and PAD (2.9 (1.3-6.6)). Conclusions Findings of this study indicate one in every ten hospital inpatients had an active foot wound or infection. In patients with diabetes had significantly higher proportions of foot complications than non-diabetes inpatients. Remarkably one in every thirteen inpatients in this study were primarily hospitalised for a foot complication. Further research and policy is required to tackle this seemingly large inpatient foot complication burden

Foot-related conditions in hospitalised populations: A literature review

Free to read\ud \ud Background: No reviews have investigated foot-related conditions prevalence in hospitalised populations. This literature review reports foot-related conditions (foot wounds, foot infections, amputations, other) and foot risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity) prevalence in representative or specific hospitalised populations.\ud \ud Methods: Electronic databases were searched for publications between 1980 and 2011. Keywords and synonyms relating to foot-related conditions, foot risk factors, inpatients and prevalence were used. Studies reporting any foot-related conditions or foot risk factor prevalence in representative or specific hospitalised populations were included, and data were extracted.\ud \ud Results: Of 3,297 records identified, 141 studies were included; 27 in representative and 114 specific inpatients. Foot wound prevalence was: 0.9-8.3% in representative and 0.1-96.4% specific inpatients; foot infection: 0.1-1.1% representative inpatients; amputation: 0.1-1.5% representative, 0.2-82.5% specific inpatients; PAD: 2.1-25.0% representative, 9.0-72.0 specific inpatients; and PN: 0.2-100% specific inpatients. \ud \ud Conclusions: This review suggests foot wounds are the main foot-related condition in hospitalised populations. Indications are up to 25% of representative inpatients have a foot risk factor for a foot wound, up to 8% have a foot wound and up to 1.5% an amputation. These rates were higher in specific inpatients, particularly inpatients with chronic disease and major trauma

Factors associated with type of footwear worn inside the house: A cross-sectional study

Background: In specific populations, including those at risk of falls or foot ulcers, indoor footwear is an important aspect of preventative care. This study aims to describe the indoor footwear worn most over the previous year in a sample representative of the Australian inpatient population, and to explore the sociodemographic, medical, foot condition and foot treatment history factors associated with the indoor footwear worn. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data collected from inpatients admitted to five hospitals across Queensland, Australia. Sociodemographic information, medical history, foot conditions and foot treatment history were collected as explanatory variables. Outcomes included the self-reported type of indoor footwear (from 16 standard footwear types) worn most in the year prior to hospitalisation, and the category in which the self-reported footwear type was defined according to its features: 'protective', 'non-protective' and 'no footwear'. Multivariate analyses determined explanatory variables independently associated with each type and category. Results: Protective footwear was worn by 11% of participants (including 4% walking shoes, 4% running shoes, 2% oxford shoes), and was independently associated with education above year 10 level (OR 1.78, p = 0.028) and having had foot treatment by a specialist physician (5.06, p = 0.003). Most participants (55%) wore non-protective footwear (including 21% slippers, 15% thongs/flip flops, 7% backless slippers), which was associated with older age (1.03, p < 0.001). No footwear was worn by 34% of participants (30% barefoot, 3% socks only). Those of older age (0.97, p < 0.001) and those in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic group (0.55, p = 0.019) were less likely to wear no footwear (socks or barefoot). Conclusions: Only one in nine people in a large representative inpatient population wore a protective indoor footwear most of the time in the previous year. Whilst having education levels above year 10 and having received previous foot treatment by a specialist physician were associated with wearing protective footwear indoors, the presence of a range of other medical and foot conditions were not. These findings provide information to enable clinicians, researchers and policymakers to develop interventions aimed at improving indoor footwear habits that may help prevent significant health burdens such as falls and foot ulcers

Factors associated with wearing inadequate outdoor footwear in populations at risk of foot ulceration: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated if people at risk of foot ulceration actually wear the footwear recommended by best practice guidelines to prevent foot ulceration. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, wearing inadequate outdoor footwear in those with diabetes or peripheral neuropathy in an inpatient population. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multi-site cross-sectional study investigating foot conditions in a large representative inpatient population admitted into hospital for any medical reason on one day. A range of explanatory variables were collected from all participants including sociodemographic, medical and foot condition factors. The outcome variable for this study was the self-reported outdoor footwear type worn most by participants outside the house in the year prior to hospitalisation. The self-reported footwear type was then categorised into adequate and inadequate according to footwear features recommended in guidelines for populations at risk of foot ulceration. Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with inadequate footwear in all inpatient participants, and diabetes and neuropathy subgroups. RESULTS: Overall, 47% of a total of 726 inpatients wore inadequate outdoor footwear; 49% of the 171 in the diabetes subgroup and 43% of 159 in the neuropathy subgroup. Wearing inadequate outdoor footwear was independently associated (Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)) with being female in the diabetes (2.7 (1.4-5.2)) and neuropathy subgroups (3.7 (1.8-7.9)) and being female (5.1 (3.7-7.1)), having critical peripheral arterial disease (2.5 (1.1-5.9)) and an amputation (0.3 (0.1-0.7)) in all inpatients (all, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of all inpatients at risk of foot ulceration reported wearing outdoor footwear most of the time that did not meet recommendations for prevention. We found women were much more likely to wear inadequate footwear. More work needs to be done to increase the uptake of footwear recommendations in these populations to prevent foot ulceration