Why would you scan the foot while the patient is fully weight-bearing? If the patient has a significantly overpronated weight-bearing foot architecture (with medial arch collapse, heel eversion, first ray elevatus, etc.) and is seeking treatment for mechanical overuse symptoms commonly associated with a flexible, overpronated weight-bearing architecture (ie. plantar fasciitis, lesser ray metatarsalgia, diffuse aching/fatigue, etc.), why would you want to capture the architecture of the foot in the alignment that is causing all the symptoms??? A full weight-bearing scan would be fine for the manufacture of accommodative orthoses for a patient with symptoms related to non-reducible acquired deformities, but for the manufacture of functional orthotics/orthoses, which are designed to control weight-bearing foot pathology, I would scan the patient's feet in a semi-WB fashion with the patient seated, knees and ankles at 90 degrees and the feet maintained in neutral alignment. I think the technology of the scanning system and 3D printed orthoses is interesting and I'd be willing to do some more research to see if it would be appropriate for my office, but my main concern is providing relief of a patient's symptoms in a cost effective fashion, not just "wowing" them with flashy new technology.
These are all good points. Would be interesting to hear any feedback on this comment. A related question is how the 3D shape of the orthotic obtained from the scans? Is it a direct replica of the scanned foot or is the 3D model of the scanned foot modified in any way following a defined biomechanics protocol prior to the orthotic being printed? So in the example provided by Neil Armstrong for a flat feet, is the 3D scan modified to add an arch prior 3D to printing the orthotic? And if so, what criteria is used to do this? How much of an arch is added? And by the same token, how is the entire 3D shape modified prior to 3D printing the orthotic?
Since no one has answered yet, I would like to do this from my point of view. Actually, it is easy to explain. A cardiac arrhythmia is measured on the ECG when it is present. There is no point in curing the patient and then performing an ECG. The same is true for the scan. We want to measure exactly the malposition in order to be able to derive a treatment from it. If we first correct the malposition and then measure it, we don't know how the insole has to be manufactured. I don't know exactly what the further procedure is here, but from my practice I can say that we take the measurements, analyze them through an algorithm and design and print the insole on this data basis. Printing an exact copy of the foot would, as you both correctly recognize, only consolidate the malposition. The goal is to innervate muscles in such a way that a training effect is created and the foot is aligned through muscle development. We check after 8-10 weeks in our own clinic by measuring again without insoles to make sure that the insoles cause a lasting improvement.
Wow wat a great invention for people who have bad feet. I could benefit from this myself!!! Thanks for this video... highly imformational. Where can u find drs who use this technique? Im on east coast of north America
