Keys To Prescribing AFOs For Senior Patients

Author(s): 
Jonathan Moore, DPM, MS

   The goal of any AFO for this condition is to promote toe clearance while limiting the speed at which the foot plantarflexes. In short, the goal is to prevent the foot from dropping during the swing phase of gait (drop foot).

   Typically, the drop foot AFO will extend from distal to the metatarsal heads to just distal to the head of the fibula. In the PDAC definition of an L1960 AFO, the proximal edge cannot be higher than 1½ inches below the head of the fibula. In some cases, the foot plate may extend to the entire length of the foot. Topcover materials for the foot are optional but can be advantageous for those (the majority) who may be at risk for skin breakdown.

   While most AFO manufacturers make some version of a posterior leaf style AFO, choosing between a simple posterior leaf design versus a dorsiflex assist device is critical.

Comments

In his zeal to promote his "Falls Prevention Brace," Dr. Moore cites literature which has no relevance to the patient population targeted in his article. The only studies that demonstrate improved balance with AFO devices were performed on patients with cerebral palsy and hemiplegia after stroke. This was clearly stipulated in the review article published by Ramstrand et al, which Dr. Moore cites.1

Furthermore, this excellent systematic review by Ramstrand et al also concluded that there is no evidence that any design of AFO can improve proprioception. The only devices thus far that have demonstrated improved proprioception are Air Cast(R) stirrup ankle braces, and these studies were performed on younger athletes with and without chronic ankle instability.

This begs the question: Can Dr. Moore provide any evidence that his device or any AFO device has demonstrated improved proprioception, balance and reduced falls in elderly patients who do not have hemiplegia or cerebral palsy?

Ramstrand N, Ramstrand S. AAOP state-of-the-science evidence report: the effect of ankle-foot orthoses on balance — a systematic review. J Prosthet Orthot. 2010;22:P4–P23.

It is important for the readers of this article to be aware of the misrepresentation of the facts of the scientific articles quoted by Dr. Moore. For example, Dr. Moore states, "In a 2006 article, Huang and colleagues reported that a solid gauntlet style AFO is the best option (over an articulated style) for those with ankle osteoarthritis arising from ankle motion.13" Yet Huang et al., did not study any type of gauntlet braces and the device which was recommended was only a simple shell brace, not a rigid gauntlet style AFO. This simple shell brace recommended by Huang et al., barely covered any portion of the foot — only the calcaneus — and was secured on the leg by a simple velcro strap.

Moore cites the study by Rao et al., to substantiate his claim that flexible AFOs improve balance and proprioception yet scrutiny of this study reveals that the single patient wore bilateral SOLID AFO devices, which are the very devices that Moore condemns for use in patients at risk for falls.

Authors should strive to present published research in an accurate and unbiased manner. Since Dr. Moore did not disclose the nature of his relationship with Arizona AFO and Langer, readers may actually believe that leather gauntlet braces are superior to all other types of AFOs as suggested in this article. I would invite any reader to review the scientific articles cited in this piece and make their own conclusions about the presentation of facts versus promotion of specific products.

Add new comment