You are on page 1of 1

THE EFFECT OF THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOOT

ORTHOSES ON ANGLE OF PELVIC TILT IN ASYMPTOMATIC


SUBJECTS WITH BILATERALLY PRONATED FEET
By Ruchi Murarka, Master In Physiotherapy (Musculoskeletal), SVNIRTAR
Guide - Ms. Monalisa Pattnaik Assistant Professor, P. G. Coordinator, Department
Of Physiotherapy, SVNIRTAR
Co – Guide- Mr. Patitapaban Mohanty Associate Professor And Head Of Department Of
Physiotherapy, SVNIRTAR

Bilateral foot pronation (measured as calcaneal eversion) may lead to an increase in


anterior tilt of the pelvis. Since hyperpronation has been suggested as a cause of anterior
pelvic tilt, it is speculated that foot orthoses could be used to correct the anteriorly tilted
position of the pelvis. However, there is paucity of literature describing the affect of foot
orthoses on pelvic alignment.
OBJECTIVE- To compare the immediate effect of MAS, Heel Raise and MAS plus
Heel Raise on the angle of pelvic tilt in asymptomatic subjects with bilaterally pronated
feet.
METHODOLOGY –
STUDY DESIGN-Repeated measures, within subject experimental design
SAMPLE SIZE-30 subjects (15 M, 15 F), with the mean age of 21.56 SD ± 2.35 who
fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were selected through a sample of
convenience.
OUTCOME MEASURES - Calcaneal eversion angle, Medial longitudinal arch angle
and Angle of anterior pelvic tilt.
DATA COLLECTION-Measurements of all outcome measures were taken for all the
subjects initially barefeet and then with each orthoses (MAS, Heel Raise and MAS plus
heel Raise)in a random order. At each step three readings were taken.
DATA ANALYSIS-The data were analysed using Repeated Measures ANOVA taking
orthoses as factor with four levels: Barefoot, MAS, Heel Raises and MAS plus Heel
Raise, for all the outcome measures. Tukeys Post Hoc analysis was done for pair wise
comparisons. Paired t test was done to find out the difference between the amount of heel
raises given in Heel Raise and MAS plus Heel Raise condition. P was set at 0.05 for all
statistical analysis.
RESULT-There was main effect for orthoses for Calcaneal eversion angle
(F(3,87,0.05)=1.84,P ≤ 0.000); Medial longitudinal arch angle (F(3,87,0.05)=311.58, P ≤
0.000) and Angle of anterior pelvic tilt (F(3,87,0.05)=887.80,P ≤ 0.000). Tukey’s HSD
showed that the change in Calcaneal eversion angle, Medial longitudinal arch angle and
Angle of anterior pelvic tilt achieved with the three orthoses was significantly different
from each other. Results of Paired sample t-test showed significant difference in number
of heel raises used in Heel Raise & MAS plus Heel Raise. (t = 15.832, P ≤ 0.000).
CONCLUSION-The findings of the study show that all the three orthoses are effective
in correcting excessive anterior pelvic tilt, calcaneal eversion and medial longitudinal
arch angle. However, medial arch support plus heel raise was found to be more
effective than Heel raise than medial arch support in correcting the abnormal alignment.
Thus medial arch support, Heel raise and medial arch support plus heel raise can be used
as an intervention for foot and lumbo-pelvic mal-alignments.