Skip to main content
Download PDF

Footwear, foot orthoses and strengthening exercises for the non-surgical management of hallux valgus: protocol for a randomised pilot and feasibility trial

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research volume 15, Article number: 45 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Hallux valgus is a common and disabling condition. This randomised pilot and feasibility trial aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a fully-powered parallel group randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted non-surgical intervention for reducing pain associated with hallux valgus.

Methods

Twenty-eight community-dwelling women with painful hallux valgus will be randomised to receive either a multifaceted, non-surgical intervention (footwear, foot orthoses, foot exercises, advice, and self-management) or advice and self-management alone. Outcome measures will be obtained at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. The primary outcome is feasibility, which will be evaluated according to demand, acceptability, adherence, adverse events, and retention rate. Limited efficacy testing will be conducted on secondary outcome measures including foot pain (the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire), foot muscle strength (hand-held dynamometry), general health-related quality of life (the Short Form-12), use of cointerventions, and participants’ perception of overall treatment effect. Biomechanical testing will be conducted at baseline to evaluate the immediate effects of the footwear/orthotic intervention on pressure beneath the foot and on the medial aspect of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and hallux.

Discussion

This study will determine the feasibility of conducting a fully-powered randomised trial of footwear, foot orthoses, foot exercises, advice and self-management for relieving pain associated with hallux valgus and provide insights into potential mechanisms of effectiveness.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12621000645853).

Peer Review reports

Background

Hallux valgus is a common and disabling condition characterised by the lateral deviation of the hallux towards the lesser toes. A systematic review of population-based studies (total 496,957 participants) reported pooled prevalence estimates of 23% in people aged 18 to 65 years and 36% in people aged over 65 years [1], with women twice as likely to be affected. The progressive subluxation of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and formation of an osseus prominence on the medial aspect of the first metatarsal leads to crowding and deformity of the lesser toes [2], abnormal gait patterns [3], impaired balance [4], difficulties with finding comfortable footwear [5], an increased risk of falls in older people [6] and decreased health-related quality of life [7].

The impact of hallux valgus on the healthcare system is considerable, as it is a frequent presentation in primary care and is one of the most common conditions treated by podiatrists [8] and orthopaedic surgeons [9]. A recently published analysis of 1.6 million patient-encounter records from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health primary care dataset revealed that general practitioners (GPs) in Australia encounter an estimated 60,000 cases of hallux valgus every year (an approximate cost of AU$2.2 M in Medicare subsidies for initial GP consultations alone [10]) while Medicare Benefits Schedule data indicates that approximately 7,000 hallux valgus surgical procedures are performed by orthopaedic surgeons in the private sector per year, at an estimated cost of AU$3 million [11]. Although substantial, this is an underestimate of the true economic burden of hallux valgus surgery, as many procedures are also performed in public hospitals and by podiatric surgeons [12].

Despite the high prevalence, associated impairments in quality of life and economic burden of hallux valgus, there are no widely adopted, evidence-based clinical guidelines to inform the selection of the most appropriate interventions. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) [13] recommend that people with hallux valgus should first be provided with analgesia, footwear advice, bunion splints or orthoses. If these treatments are not effective or the severity of the condition progresses, surgical referral is then recommended. However, the NICE guidelines caution that these recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion rather than evidence. In Australia, where no such guidelines exist, people with painful hallux valgus presenting to GPs are most commonly provided with advice, pain medications and referral to orthopaedic surgeons [10].

Non-surgical management of hallux valgus may involve footwear advice or modification, foot orthoses, night splints, and physical therapies (manual therapy, taping or foot exercises). In podiatric clinical practice, these interventions are often combined in a multifaceted approach [14]. However, there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of any of these interventions. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of non-surgical interventions for hallux valgus identified 16 parallel-group and crossover studies evaluating a wide range of non-surgical interventions [15]. Overall, included trials were of low methodological quality. Many had small sample sizes (12 out of 16 studies having < 60 participants) and short follow-up periods (10 out of 16 having follow-up < 3 months), thus providing low certainty as to the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions and longer-term management of the condition.

Of the available non-surgical treatments, the most widely used are footwear, foot orthoses and foot exercises [14], and there is preliminary evidence supporting the use of these approaches. Ill-fitting footwear is an important modifiable risk factor for the development and progression of hallux valgus, as it has been shown that the likelihood of having the condition is significantly greater in those who have worn shoes with a very narrow toe box between the ages of 20 and 29 years [16]. Furthermore, if the condition is already present, the provision of extra-depth footwear which accommodates the broader forefoot may reduce pain [17]. Foot orthoses have been shown to reduce load under the great toe and medial midfoot in people with hallux valgus [18], and a randomised trial reported a significant reduction in pain at six months those who received this intervention [19]. As hallux valgus progresses, the malalignment of the first metatarsophalangeal joint results in decreased muscle size [20] and subsequent weakness of the muscles responsible for hallux plantarflexion and abduction [21]. However, a recent trial of older people (78% women) found that a progressive, resistance exercise program improved hallux plantarflexion strength by approximately 20% over 12 weeks and resulted in an improvement in perceived foot health [22].

The available evidence provides preliminary support for the use of footwear, foot orthoses and foot exercises for the treatment of hallux valgus, but these three promising approaches are yet to be evaluated in combination. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial comparing multifaceted, non-surgical intervention (footwear, foot orthoses, foot exercises, advice, and self-management) versus advice and self-management alone for reducing pain associated with hallux valgus. The secondary objective is to obtain statistical parameters to inform the main trial sample size calculation and provide a signal of efficacy to justify the future main trial.

Methods

Study design

The multifaceted intervention for hallux valgus (MARVELL) trial will be a parallel group, participant- and assessor-blinded, randomised pilot and feasibility trial over 12 weeks. We consider the trial to be both a pilot trial (as it includes the key features of a full randomised trial but on a smaller scale) and a feasibility trial (as it addresses questions regarding whether a full trial could be feasibly undertaken) [23]. The study has been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12621000645853), and was developed in consultation with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement [24] and the CONSORT 2010 statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials [25]. The SPIRIT checklist is provided in the Supplementary file, supplemented by items from CONSORT, as recommended by Thabane and Lancaster [26]. Ethical approval was obtained from the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (reference number: HEC20474).

Participants

Twenty-eight participants will be recruited from the northern suburbs of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. To be eligible for inclusion, participants must: (i) be aged ≥ 40 years, (ii) be female, (iii) have pain in the big toe joint/s (i.e. first metatarsophalangeal or interphalangeal) for at least 12 weeks, (iv) have big toe joint pain rated at least 3 out of 10 on a numerical rating scale, (v) be able to walk household distances (more than 50 m) without the aid of a walker, crutches or cane, (vi) be capable of understanding the English language in verbal and written form, and (vii) have at least moderate hallux valgus on one or both feet, defined as a score of 2 or more on the validated Manchester scale [27], a tool containing four standardised photographs of varying degrees of hallux valgus deformity. Participants will not be eligible for inclusion if they self-report: (i) surgical treatment for hallux valgus on either foot, (ii) lower limb or partial foot amputation, (iii) an inflammatory rheumatological condition such as gout, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthropathy or connective tissue disease, (iv) a neurological disease which interferes with walking (e.g. Parkinson’s disease), (v) having worn arch-contouring foot orthoses in the past 12 weeks (although flat insoles will be permitted), (vi) performing foot exercises (stretching, mobilisation or strengthening) in the past 12 weeks, or (vii) an injury of lower limb(s) or back that may interfere with reaching their feet. We specifically focused on females in this study due to their higher prevalence of hallux valgus [1] and use of constrictive footwear [28].

Sample size

This is a pilot and feasibility trial, so it is not fully powered to detect statistically significant differences between the groups. The recommended sample size for feasibility and pilot studies is 12 people per group [29], however to allow for a 15% drop-out rate, we will recruit 28 participants. This is similar to the median sample size of 30 for pilot trials documented in the United Kingdom Clinical Research Network database [30].

Recruitment and screening

Participants will be recruited using the following methods: (i) postal invitation using a database of patients who receive podiatry treatment at the La Trobe University Health Sciences Clinic, (ii) email distribution to staff members in the School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport at La Trobe University, (iii) Facebook advertising and (iv) posters placed in the local community. Potential participants will be asked to contact the chief investigator (HBM) to express their interest and will then be screened for eligibility by telephone and/or email by two members of the research team (HBM and PQL).

Baseline assessments

Participant characteristics will be collected by structured interview at the baseline assessment (approximate duration of two hours) and will include age, height, weight, country of birth, education level, major medical conditions, and medications. The following questionnaires and clinical assessments will also be conducted:

  1. (i)

    the Manchester scale [27] for hallux valgus;

  2. (ii)

    foot pain characteristics, including duration and location, using a standardised foot diagram [31];

  3. (iii)

    history of hallux valgus, including age of onset, family history and previous treatments;

  4. (iv)

    shoe-wearing history, using a standardised set of images depicting toe-box shapes and heel heights [16];

  5. (v)

    foot structure, using a 3D laser scanner (INFOOT, I-Ware Laboratory, Japan);

  6. (vi)

    the Incidental and Planned Activity Questionnaire [32];

  7. (vii)

    the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire [33], which assesses participants’ beliefs about the logic underpinning the intervention and perceptions of how much they may benefit. The CEQ will be administered after randomisation and allocation. The CEQ consists of six items; three are related to credibility and three are related to expectancy. For each item, participants will be asked to rate the credibility of the intervention and their expectations on a 9-point Likert scale. High scores on the scale indicate that the participant considers the intervention to be credible and expects it to be effective.

Randomisation

Permuted block randomisation will be used to randomise participants on a 1:1 ratio to the control or intervention group using an online randomisation service (www.sealedenvelope.com).

Study procedure

Participant flow through the trial is outlined in Fig. 1. All face-to-face assessments will be performed in the Foot and Ankle Laboratory at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Postal follow-ups will be conducted at 4 and 8 weeks, with the final face-to-face follow-up at 12 weeks.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Planned participant flow through the trial

Full size image

Blinding

Participants will be blinded to group allocation by limited disclosure, in that they will be told that the clinical trial is comparing two non-surgical treatments for hallux valgus, but they are not informed about the specific characteristics of the treatments. Research staff administering the treatments cannot be blinded. Outcomes are participant-reported, thus this study is also assessor-blinded (as participants are blinded). The study biostatistician performing the statistical analyses will be blinded.

Interventions

Control group

The control group will receive a self-management package based on United Kingdom National Health Service recommendations [34] which advise people with hallux valgus to wear wide shoes with a low heel and soft sole, apply cold-packs and silicone gel bunion pads, and use paracetamol for pain relief. To address expectations to be provided with a ‘take-home’ intervention, we will provide all participants with cold-packs (Hot + Cold Therapy Gel Pack; OAPL, Clayton, Victoria, Australia) and silicone gel bunion pads (Spandex Gel™ Cushion Bunion Pads; Neat® Feat, Auckland, New Zealand). To meet ethical guidelines and aid retention, on completion of the study the control group participants will be offered the same treatment as the intervention group.

Intervention group

The intervention group will be provided with the same advice and self-management package as the control group, in addition to:

  1. (i)

    Footwear: high quality, off-the-shelf footwear (Anodyne #45 Sport Jogger; Global Footcare, Coomera, Queensland, Australia). These shoes have been selected as they have an extra-wide toe box and pliable upper material to alleviate pressure on the hallux (Fig. 2). The shoes will be correctly fitted by a research podiatrist, and participants will be asked to wear them as often as possible.

  2. (ii)

    Foot orthoses: prefabricated Formthotics™ (Foot Science International, Christchurch, New Zealand). These orthoses are ¾ length and are constructed from dual-density, closed-cell polyethylene foam (bottom layer 140 kg/m3, top layer 60 kg/m3). See Fig. 3. Previous research has shown that these orthoses are well accepted, with 81% of participants reporting being ‘somewhat or very satisfied’ with them in a 12 month falls prevention trial [35]. We will use the ¾ length rather than full-length devices as they are less likely to increase dorsal/medial pressure from footwear in people with hallux valgus [36]. The existing insoles will be removed from the shoe to accommodate the orthoses. Participants will be asked to wear these with their footwear as often as possible. At the baseline appointment, minor modifications will be made where necessary to ensure that the orthoses are comfortable.

  3. (iii)

    Foot exercises: participants will be provided with access to a smart-phone app (PhysiTrack®, London, United Kingdom) which demonstrates a home-based version of the progressive resistance foot exercise program developed by Mickle et al. [22]. Participants without access to a smart-phone or personal computer will be provided with a hard copy of the program. The set of nine exercises are performed three times per week for the 12 weeks. Each session takes approximately 30 min to complete. Most of the exercises are performed in a seated position using latex resistance bands wrapped around the toes and/or foot. The exercises target the muscles responsible for ankle dorsiflexion, ankle inversion/eversion, hallux and lesser toe flexion and hallux abduction, and are progressed by either increasing the number of times the exercises are performed (repetitions) or by increasing the level of resistance provided by the bands (light to extra heavy). Adherence to the home-based foot exercise program has been shown to be very high, with 80% of participants (aged 60 to 90 years, 78% women) completing at least 75% of the exercises. The exercises have been shown to increase strength of foot muscles by approximately 20% [22]. Participants will be contacted by the developer of the exercise program (KJM) to address any queries and ensure they are performing the exercises correctly.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Intervention footwear (Anodyne #45 Sport Jogger). Image reproduced with permission from Global Footcare, Coomera, Queensland, Australia

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Intervention foot orthoses (dual-density, three-quarter length Formthotics™). Image reproduced with permission from Foot Science International, Christchurch, New Zealand

Full size image

Interventions will be administered to both feet, irrespective of whether hallux valgus is unilateral or bilateral. Participants will be free to use additional treatments during the study provided that they are documented in the four-weekly postal surveys. However, participants will be required to withdraw from the study if they report undergoing surgical intervention.

Biomechanical assessment

Following randomisation, participants will undergo a biomechanical assessment to evaluate the immediate effects of the footwear/orthotic intervention on loading (i) beneath the foot, and (ii) on the medial aspect of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and hallux. To assess loading beneath the foot, peak plantar pressures under the toes, forefoot, midfoot and heel will be measured with the in-shoe pedar®-X system (novel GmbH, Munich, Germany), a reliable, valid and accurate measure of in-shoe pressure [37]. The pedar® insoles are approximately 2 mm thick and consist of 99 capacitive pressure sensors, arranged in grid alignment. Plantar pressure data will be sampled at a frequency of 50 Hz. Participants will complete four walking trials for each condition, (i.e., own shoes for control group participants and own shoes versus extra-depth shoes with orthoses for intervention group participants). An average recording will be determined from the 16 steps (four steps from four trials) for each condition, which has been shown to be a sufficient number of trials to obtain reliable measurements [37].

To assess loading on the medial aspect of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and interphalangeal joint of the hallux, the pedar®-pad, a highly elastic strap of 256 sensors, will be placed inside the shoe along the medial border of the forefoot (incorporating the first metatarsophalangeal and interphalangeal joints), and peak pressures will be documented. This will be performed in participants’ own most frequently worn closed-in shoes (for control group participants) and own shoes versus extra-depth shoes with orthoses (for intervention group participants).

Primary outcome: feasibility

The primary outcome is feasibility, which will be evaluated according to demand, acceptability, adherence, adverse events and retention rate [38]. The measures and thresholds required to demonstrate feasibility are described below, and a summary is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of feasibility outcome measures and thresholds
Full size table

Demand

Demand will be determined by the recruitment rate (the number of participants recruited per month) and the conversion rate (the proportion of participants providing consent of those who met the selection criteria). The recruitment rate will be considered acceptable if six eligible participants are recruited per month, and the conversion rate will be considered acceptable if ≥ 75%.

Acceptability

Acceptability of the intervention will be determined using questions from the Monitor Orthopaedic Shoes (MOS) questionnaire [39] which address issues such as appearance, comfort, weight, and ease of donning and doffing. The intervention will be considered acceptable if ≥ 75% of the intervention group score more than 5/10 for each of questions 1–6.

Adherence

Adherence to the footwear/orthoses intervention will be documented using four-weekly diaries and objectively assessed over 12 weeks using a small (9 × 13 × 4.5 mm) temperature sensor embedded in the orthosis (Orthotimer®, Balingen, Germany). Time, date, and temperature measurements will be stored every 15 min, with recordings above 26° Celsius being indicative of shoe wear time [40]. The sensor has previously been validated against objectively measured wear time [40, 41] and is not influenced by ambient temperature fluctuations or physical activity levels [40]. Adherence will be considered acceptable if ≥ 75% of participants wear the footwear/orthoses for an average of ≥ 5 h per day over the 12-week follow-up period. Adherence to the exercise program will be documented using 4-weekly diaries (or the PhysiTrack® smart-phone app) and will be considered acceptable if ≥ 75% of participants attempt at least 66% of the total number of exercise sessions (i.e., 24 out of 36 sessions). In both the control and intervention groups, adherence to the hot/cold packs and bunion pads will be measured using four-weekly diaries.

Adverse events

Adverse events will be assessed at four-weekly intervals via postal diary. Participants will be asked to document the type of adverse event, the body location, the frequency and/or severity of the effect. An independent assessor will assess all adverse events as unrelated, probably related or definitely related, and only those considered to be probably or definitely related will be considered an adverse event. Serious adverse events will be defined as events that are life-threatening, require hospitalisation, or result in persistent or significant disability or incapacity [42]. The rate of adverse events will be considered acceptable if < 15% and none are considered serious.

Retention rate

Retention rate is the proportion of recruited participants who complete the 12-week outcome assessment. A ≥ 80% retention rate in each group will be considered acceptable.

Secondary outcome: limited efficacy testing

The selection of efficacy outcome measures for this trial is based on expert (OMERACT: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative) guidelines. The key outcome measure is the pain subscale of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) [43], which has undergone extensive psychometric validation and is recognised as the best condition-specific outcome measure for hallux valgus [44]. The MOXFQ consists of 16 items reflecting three subscales (pain, walking/standing and social interaction). The pain subscale consists of five items scored on a five-point Likert scale (0 to 4; ‘4’ assigned ‘most severe’; higher scores denoting higher severity). The score for each subscale is calculated as the sum of each individual item score and is expressed on a metric of 0 to 100 (100 times actual score, divided by the maximum possible domain score). The MOXFQ pain domain will be measured at baseline and at four-weekly intervals. The pre-specified primary endpoint will be the 12-week score. The minimum clinically important difference for the MOXFQ pain subscale is 12 points [45].

Other limited efficacy outcome measures will include:

  1. (i)

    the MOXFQ [43] walking subscale, measured at baseline and at four-weekly intervals until 12 weeks;

  2. (ii)

    the MOXFQ [43] social subscale, measured at baseline and at four-weekly intervals until 12 weeks;

  3. (iii)

    foot and ankle muscle strength, measured with a hand-held dynamometer using our previously documented, reliable protocol at baseline and week 12 [46];

  4. (iv)

    general health-related quality of life, assessed using Short Form(SF)-12 [47] measured every four weeks;

  5. (v)

    number of participants using co-interventions, documented every four weeks;

  6. (vi)

    participants’ perception of overall treatment effect, assessed with the question “Overall, how has your foot pain changed since the start of the study?” and using a global impression of change 15-point Likert scale response (ranging from ‘a very great deal worse’ to ‘a very great deal better’), measured at 12 weeks [48].

An acceptable feasibility outcome for the limited efficacy testing will be a signal of efficacy for each continuously-scored outcome measure, as evidenced by at least a small effect size (Cohen’s d ≥ 0.20, calculated as the difference between the two group means divided by the overall standard deviation), less than 20% use of cointerventions, and a greater than 25% difference in proportion of participants reporting at least ‘somewhat better’ on the perception of overall treatment effect compared to the control group.

A summary of the limited efficacy outcome measures is provided in Table 2, and a summary of standard protocol items is provided in Table 3.

Table 2 Summary of the limited efficacy outcome measures
Full size table
Table 3 Summary of standard protocol items
Full size table

Data management

Hard copy baseline and follow-up questionnaires will be stored in a locked filing cabinet at La Trobe University and then shredded after being transferred into electronic formats for analysis (Microsoft Excel; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA, and IBM SPSS Statistics; IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA). Other data files (3D foot scans and plantar pressure files) will be stored in native file formats on a password-protected university server and will be securely deleted following de-identification and transfer to electronic formats for analysis.

Statistical analysis

As this is a feasibility study, it is not powered to detect changes in outcome measures, so the focus will not be on inferential testing. Descriptive statistics will be used to report feasibility outcomes. Mean (SD) scores and mean differences (95% CI) will be used to explore differences in continuous variables between the groups. Differences in the MOXFQ pain subscale between groups at 12 weeks (analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline differences) will be used to inform the sample size calculation for the main randomised trial.

Discussion

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial comparing multifaceted, non-surgical intervention (footwear, foot orthoses, foot exercises, advice, and self-management) versus advice and self-management alone for reducing pain associated with hallux valgus. Although our recent systematic review [15] identified two studies reporting significant reductions in pain with the use of foot orthoses [19] and exercises [49] in people with hallux valgus, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study designed to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions when used in combination, which is more reflective of contemporary clinical practice [14].

A key limitation of the study design is the inability to blind the research staff administering the interventions, however as the outcomes are participant-reported and participants are blinded by limited disclosure, the study can be considered to be assessor-blinded. The most likely barrier to acceptability of (and therefore adherence to) the intervention is aesthetic concerns regarding the footwear. This is a common and largely unavoidable issue with footwear interventions, given their unique role as both a treatment and an item of clothing [50]. Acceptability may be of particular concern in this study, due to the shoes requiring an extra wide toe box to alleviate pressure from the deformity.

The study design has several key strengths, including randomisation, concealed allocation, and blinded analysis, and the reported protocol adheres to the SPIRIT 2013 statement [24] and the CONSORT 2010 statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials [25]. We have selected intervention components that have demonstrated safety and acceptability, are relatively low cost and accessible in the Australian context, so the package of interventions is likely to be easily implemented and scalable if feasibility is demonstrated and the subsequent fully-powered trial demonstrates clinical efficacy. The study design also incorporates objective measurement of adherence, limited efficacy outcome measures addressing the relevant domains of pain and muscle strength, and plantar pressure assessment to provide insights into the potential mechanisms by which footwear and foot orthoses may alleviate loading on the first metatarsophalangeal joint.

Trial status

The study commenced recruitment in June 2021 and the first participant completed baseline testing on July 8, 2021. However, due to stay-at-home restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment and data collection were suspended from July 15 to 27 and from August 5 to October 21, 2021 (94 days in total) [51]. The study recommenced on October 22, 2021, and we envisage that 12-week follow ups will be completed by July 30, 2022. The findings will be reported to participants, disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at international conferences in 2022/3.

Availability of data and materials

On completion and publication of the study, de-identified data may be accessed by request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

CEQ:

Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

GP:

General Practitioner

MOS:

Monitor Orthopaedic Shoes

MOXFQ:

Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire

NICE:

National Institute for Health Care Excellence

OMERACT:

Outcome Measures in Rheumatology

SF:

Short Form

SPIRIT:

Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials

References

  1. Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B. Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Roan LY, Tanaka Y, Taniguchi A, Tomiwa K, Kumai T, Cheng YM. Why do lesser toes deviate laterally in hallux valgus? A radiographic study. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(6):664–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nix SE, Vicenzino BT, Collins NJ, Smith MD. Gait parameters associated with hallux valgus: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6(1):9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Nix SE, Vicenzino BT, Smith MD. Foot pain and functional limitation in healthy adults with hallux valgus: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp RJ, Cooke P, Jenkinson C. Factors associated with satisfaction with bunion surgery in women: a prospective study. Foot. 2007;17(3):119–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Menz HB, Auhl M, Spink MJ. Foot problems as a risk factor for falls in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2018;118:7–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Menz HB, Roddy E, Thomas E, Croft PR. Impact of hallux valgus severity on general and foot-specific health-related quality of life. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(3):396–404.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett PJ. Types of foot problems seen by Australian podiatrists. Foot. 2012;22(1):40–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Coughlin MJ, Thompson FM. The high price of high-fashion footwear. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:371–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Menz HB, Harrison C, Britt H, Whittaker GA, Landorf KB, Munteanu SE. Management of Hallux Valgus in General Practice in Australia. Arthritis Care Res. 2020;72(11):1536–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Menz HB, Gilheany MF, Landorf KB. Foot and ankle surgery in Australia: a descriptive analysis of the Medicare benefits schedule database, 1997–2006. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008;1:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bennett PJ. Prevalence and type of foot surgery performed in Australia: a clinical review. Foot. 2007;17(4):197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute for Health Care Excellence: Bunions. In. United Kingdom: National Institute for Health Care Excellence. 2016.

  14. Hurn SE, Vicenzino BT, Smith MD. Non-surgical treatment of hallux valgus: a current practice survey of Australian podiatrists. J Foot Ankle Res. 2016;9:16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Hurn SE, Matthews BG, Munteanu SE, Menz HB: Effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for hallux valgus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.24603. Online ahead of print.

  16. Menz HB, Roddy E, Marshall M, Thomas MJ, Rathod T, Peat GM, Croft PR. Epidemiology of shoe wearing patterns over time in older women: associations with foot pain and hallux valgus. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(12):1682–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Menz HB, Auhl M, Ristevski S, Frescos N, Munteanu SE. Effectiveness of off-the-shelf, extra-depth footwear in reducing foot pain in older people: a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015;70(4):511–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Farzadi M, Safaeepour Z, Mousavi ME, Saeedi H. Effect of medial arch support foot orthosis on plantar pressure distribution in females with mild-to-moderate hallux valgus after one month of follow-up. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;39(2):134–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Torkki M, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, Hoikka V, Laippala P, Paavolainen P. Surgery vs orthosis vs watchful waiting for hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285:2474–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mickle KJ, Nester CJ. Morphology of the toe flexor muscles in older people with toe deformities. Arthritis Care Res. 2018;70(6):902–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hurn SE, Vicenzino B, Smith MD. Functional impairments characterizing mild, moderate, and severe hallux valgus. Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67(1):80–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mickle KJ, Caputi P, Potter JM, Steele JR. Efficacy of a progressive resistance exercise program to increase toe flexor strength in older people. Clin Biomech. 2016;40:14–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, Bond CM. Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150205.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K, Hróbjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleza-Jeric K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, Lancaster GA. PAFS consensus group: CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016;355:i5239.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Thabane L, Lancaster G. A guide to the reporting of protocols of pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019;5(1):37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Menz HB, Munteanu SE. Radiographic validation of the Manchester scale for the classification of hallux valgus deformity. Rheumatology. 2005;44(8):1061–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Buldt AK, Menz HB. Incorrectly fitted footwear, foot pain and foot disorders: a systematic search and narrative review of the literature. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018;11:43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharmaceut Statist. 2005;4:287–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Billingham SAM, Whitehead AL, Julious SA. An audit of sample sizes for pilot and feasibility trials being undertaken in the United Kingdom registered in the United Kingdom clinical research network database. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Chatterton BD, Muller S, Thomas MJ, Menz HB, Rome K, Roddy E. Inter and intra-rater repeatability of the scoring of foot pain drawings. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6:44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Delbaere K, Hauer K, Lord SR. Evaluation of the incidental and planned activity questionnaire for older people. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(14):1029–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Devilly GJ, Borkovec TD. Psychometric properties of the credibility/expectancy questionnaire. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2000;31(2):73–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. National Health Service. Health A-Z: Bunions [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/bunions/]

  35. Menz HB, Spink MJ, Landorf KB, Hill KD, Lord SR. Older people’s perceptions of a multifaceted podiatric medical intervention to prevent falls. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2013;103(6):457–64.

  36. Doty JF, Alvarez RG, Ervin TB, Heard A, Gilbreath J, Richardson NS. Biomechanical evaluation of custom foot orthoses for hallux valgus deformity. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54(5):852–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Putti AB, Arnold GP, Cochrane L, Abboud RJ. The Pedar in-shoe system: repeatability and normal pressure values. Gait Posture. 2007;25(3):401–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, Bakken S, Kaplan CP, Squiers L, Fabrizio C, Fernandez M. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):452–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. van Netten JJ, Hijmans JM, Jannink MJ, Geertzen JH, Postema K. Development and reproducibility of a short questionnaire to measure use and usability of custom-made orthopaedic shoes. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(11):913–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Menz HB, Bonanno DR. Objective measurement of adherence to wearing foot orthoses using an embedded temperature sensor. Med Eng Phys. 2021;88:19–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lutjeboer T, van Netten JJ, Postema K, Hijmans JM. Validity and feasibility of a temperature sensor for measuring use and non-use of orthopaedic footwear. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50(10):920–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Keech AC, Wonders SM, Cook DI, Gebski VJ. Balancing the outcomes: reporting adverse events. Med J Aust. 2004;181(4):215–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, Jenkinson C. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(7):1211–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schrier JC, Palmen LN, Verheyen CC, Jansen J, Koeter S. Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery. A review of literature. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;21(1):11–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C. Oxford and Birmingham foot and ankle clinical research group: Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(8):918–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Spink MJ, Fotoohabadi MR, Menz HB. Foot and ankle strength assessment using hand-held dynamometry: reliability and age-related differences. Gerontology. 2010;56(6):525–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Abdalbary SA. Foot mobilization and exercise program combined with toe separator improves outcomes in women with Moderate Hallux Valgus at 1-year follow-up (a randomized clinical trial). J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2018;108(6):478–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Williams AE, Nester CJ, Ravey MI, Kottink A, Klapsing MG. Women’s experiences of wearing therapeutic footwear in three European countries. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:23.

  51. Boaz J: Melbourne passes Buenos Aires' world record for time spent in COVID-19 lockdown. In. ABC News; 2021. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-03/melbourne-longest-lockdown/100510710]

Download references

Acknowledgements

HBM is currently a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellow (ID: 1135995). We would like to acknowledge the support of Jeff Coombridge (Global Footcare, Coomera, Queensland, Australia) and Steve Lafferty (Foot Science International, Christchurch, New Zealand).

Funding

This study is funded by the La Trobe University Research Focus Area in Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Grant-ready Scheme. The footwear was provided at a discounted cost by Global Footcare (Coomera, Queensland, Australia) and the foot orthoses were donated by Foot Science International (Christchurch, New Zealand). The funders were not involved in the design of the study, in the writing of the protocol, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia

    Hylton B. Menz, Polly Q. Lim, Andrew K. Buldt, Matthew P. Cotchett & Shannon E. Munteanu

  2. School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia

    Sheree E. Hurn

  3. School of Environment and Life Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia

    Karen J. Mickle

  4. Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, ST5 5BG, Staffordshire, UK

    Edward Roddy

  5. Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Haywood Hospital, Burslem, ST6 7AG, Staffordshire, UK

    Edward Roddy

  6. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

    Anita E. Wluka

  7. School of Psychology and Public Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia

    Bircan Erbas

Authors
  1. Hylton B. Menz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Polly Q. Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sheree E. Hurn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen J. Mickle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew K. Buldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew P. Cotchett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Edward Roddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anita E. Wluka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bircan Erbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Shannon E. Munteanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HBM, SHE, KJM, AKB, ER, AEW, BE and SEM conceived the idea for the study and all authors contributed to the development of the protocol. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hylton B. Menz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has obtained approval from the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (reference number: HEC20474) and all participants will provide written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None of the authors has a conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Menz, H.B., Lim, P.Q., Hurn, S.E. et al. Footwear, foot orthoses and strengthening exercises for the non-surgical management of hallux valgus: protocol for a randomised pilot and feasibility trial. J Foot Ankle Res 15, 45 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-022-00553-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-022-00553-4

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

ISSN: 1757-1146