Hey and good day!!!
Just wondering if any of you have received the samples as of yet..??
Can an operator make a distinction, based on F-scan, to know which structure is responsible for the finding or which structure to treat in order to address a complaint?
I know you to be an intelligent man who will already have an answer to this question. There will be those who can find any number of reasons not to employ technology. And there will be those who find such technology an invaluable addition to their work. Each can decide for themselves. I am not on the Tekscan pay roll and do not feel pressured to act as an advocate.
I have been fortunate, in my studies and on my travels, in Europe, America and China to meet those who use this technology to great advantage for their patients. I have said this before, over the years, and I will repeat one last time. The mechanical approach invariably is modified and improved when such technology is incorporated. The usefulness of this utility seems to grow exponentially as the operator becomes more familiar with the technology.
There is little to add by pointing at a lack of high level evidence. This will be true of many / most of available mechanical interventions.
Thank you for your candid response and your frank admission that:
"There is little to add by pointing at a lack of high level evidence. This will be true of many / most of available mechanical interventions".
I wish you well in the next few months as you persevere to complete this phase of your career.
I predict that you have only scratched the surface of what you will accomplish for podiatry and biomechanics.
Can an operator make a distinction, based on F-scan, to know which structure is responsible for the finding or which structure to treat in order to address a compaint?
I am not sure I understand what it is you are asking, or why you are asking in this way. The F-scan can indicate asymetrical function, among other indicators. Can an operator make a distinction, based on F-scan, to know which structure is responsible for the finding: is that your question?
Questions are funny that way.
I'll expand your question a bit to read:
One of the problems of using an F-scan for diagnosis is the conundrum: Does the gait cause the pain? or does pain cause the gait? I believe both are true. The way you walk can cause overload of an anatomical structure and then cause pain. Pain can cause you to alter your gait as in limping is altered gait. So, when looking only at a step with an F-scan you don't know if you are looking at the gait that will cause pain later, or are you looking at gait that has been altered because of pain.
That said, the F-scan can provide some useful clinical information. I have used an F-scan to alter an orthotic in a neuropathic DM patient with an ulcer. However, there is not any literature on symetry being helpful in diagnosing or treating foot problems.
The Pressure Mapping (F-scan) may be showing asymmetry for many reasons.
How do you know that the asymmetry read is due to undervaulting and not a limb length or an overactive triceps?
It is entirely possible. I offered up your 'vaulting' concept simply to demonstrate a point. The doctor will evaluate and address all possibilities.
By entirely possible, you mean that currently, an experience F-scan user cannot do what you claim with certainlty?
By entirely possible, you mean that currently, an experienced F-scan user cannot do what you claim with certainlty?
I am assuming you are making a reference to CoP / Center of Force as in pressure mapping technology?
If so, the value of this measurement lies in delineating a deviation / asymmetry when comparing left to right, before and after intervention. In FT parlance, let's say one foot is under-vaulted more than the other. This can be picked up with pressure mapping and the CoP curve will be deviated asymmetrically. After restoration of the vault to optimum achievable, the plantar pressure distribution and CoP curve may now more closely demonstrate bilateral symmetry.
I can agree that if one looked at CoP plots enough, while altering orthotics, there may some changes that correlate with decreased symptoms in the plantar fascia. Howard Dannenberg has worked a lot with this. I'm still waiting for him to publish his formula on how to alter an orthotic based on pressure mat analysis.
In addition to CoP the Tekscan system can provide also for temporal analysis to know if there is asymmetry in the stance and swing phase of gait, and the contact / midstance and propulsive components, and between the right and left side, also providing valuable information about cadence.
By way of example, Dr. D'Amico does an excellent lecture on how to evaluate and address LLD. What is especially revealing is the fact that mechanical interventions do not necessarily produce the effect we might anticipate from our theoretical understanding of gait. Frequently working practice is modified when this technology is incorporated. That Dr. Dananberg worked so intensively with this technology speaks volumes.
Your feedback was sent succesfully!
We promise to thoroughly investigate each issue that you bring to our attention and get back to you with the results.