ClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT05129540Updated Dec 9, 2024

Foot Orthoses in Patients with Sciatica

An interventional study of Custom-made foot orthosis and Placebo orthosis in Chronic Sciatica and Foot Deformity, sponsored by University of Seville. Terminated at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 90 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-12-09.

Sponsored by University of Seville · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
Large number of loss of participats.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
50
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 90 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Chronic sciatica is a frequent problem whose symptoms could be related to the abnormal stresses applied to the musculoskeletal system during the gait cycle due to foot alterations.

The objectives of this study are to describe the main foot alterations in patients with chronic sciatica, and to evaluate whether foot orthoses can help alleviate this pain. Patients with chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation will be recruited and randomly allocate to one of both groups: one group that will be treated with custom-made foot orthoses, and one group that will be treated with a placebo orthotic device. Quality of life, pain in low-back, lower limb and foot, and disability caused by foot pain will be recorded at baseline, and after a two-month follow-up period.

Read the detailed description

A multi-centre randomised controlled clinical trial has been designed according to the CONSORT guidelines. The design was carried out by the research group (5 researchers, Ph.D and Degree in Podiatry, from the University of Seville and 2 researchers, Medicine Doctors, from the university hospital "Virgen de Valme", in Seville, Spain). The patients will be diagnosed and recruited from the aforementioned hospital. The data will be gathered in the Clinical Area of Podiatry of the University of Seville.

The main inclusion criteria will be to have a medical diagnosis of chronic sciatica (CS) caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH). All participants who voluntarily take part in the study will be given an informative document where the nature, objectives, and potential risks of the investigation are explained. When the participants have read it and any doubts have been resolved, the informed consent will be given for them to sign.

Firstly, clinical and demographic data will be collected, including age, gender, weight, height, years since diagnosis and current pharmacological management. Patients with CS will be explored and the Foot Posture Index (FPI) (a validated method for quantifying standing foot posture), and the Manchester scale for hallux valgus will be recorded for both the right and left foot. Plantar pressure will be obtained using the footscan® Advanced Pressure Measurement System (RsScan Lab LTD, UK). Standard podiatric care will be provided to the patients at the assessment session and when finished the follow up three months later, if needed. Participants will be requested not to have further foot interventions.

After the biomechanical examination, phenolic foam molds will be made of the patient's feet under weight-bearing conditions. The patient's foot will be manipulated before being introduced into the phenolic foam so as to place the subtalar joint in the most neutral position possible, always maintaining the forefoot plantar plane parallel to the ground. In the case of FPI values between +6 and +12, the examiner will hold the distal third of the participant's leg and apply external rotational force to the leg until the mirror of the pedoscope shows incipient loss of the first ray footprint that is, that the first metatarsal begins to elevate. At that moment, the examiner will stop applying external rotational force to the leg. The examiner will repeat this manoeuvre several times, as the external rotation applied to the foot in contact with the glass will be the same as that applied when introducing the foot into the phenolic foam. The same procedure but with internal rotation of the leg will be carried out for FPI values between -12 to -1. For feet with FPI values between 0 and +5, the examiner's hands will apply resistance against pronation or supination in order to maintain the foot in a normal posture.

For foot orthoses delivery one researcher will verify the fitting of the orthosis to the patient's foot. Then the orthosis will be set into shoes. Finally, the participants will be asked if the insoles cause them pain or discomfort in every session. Both interventions have the same protocol.

The software AleatorMetod.xls, available at www4.ujaen.es/\~mramos/EPIP/AleatorMetod.xls, will be used to randomly allocate the participants into two groups, and this allocation will be concealed in envelopes. The simple randomisation process will be carried out according to the order of appointment, so that the first patient treated will be number 1. The participants themselves will choose the day and time to attend the Podiatric Clinical Area without knowing the order number that participants have or the corresponding random assignment. Group A will be the experimental group and will receive the custom-made foot orthoses and Group B will be the control group and will be given the placebo treatment. Both groups will be followed up for 3 months, and the data related to foot pain, be recorded monthly by phone. This phone call will remind the participants to appropriately use the orthoses during the follow-up period.

The primary outcome is pain within the foot, lower extremity and lumbar region. Visual analogue scale will be used to record pain at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period, and self-reported pain intensity once a month by phone call will be assessed with an 11-point NPRS with 0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as it can be.

Secondary outcomes will be disability related to foot pain, and quality of life. Disability related to foot pain will be measured using the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI) at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period. The values of this index range from 0 to 38, with higher values corresponding to greater disability. The SF-12 questionnaire will be used to collect data about the quality of life. This has values between 0 and 100, with higher values corresponding to a lower quality of life.

All the participants will be blinded, as will not know what group belong to and the type of orthoses that will be given in the study (intervention or placebo). Patients will only be informed that the research will evaluate this treatment to manage pain in patients with CS caused by LDH. The participants will be requested to use the foot orthoses assigned seven days a week for a minimum of eight hours per day for three months. The researcher who performs the measurements at days 0, 30, 60, and 90 will not be the same researcher who conducts the randomisation, adapts the foot orthoses, and gives them to the participants. Thus, researchers will be blinded as well. Adverse events will be recorded as part of the monitoring and appropriate safety measures. The participants will be asked about any problems with the foot orthoses and their adaptation to the footwear.

The minimum sample size was calculated using the following formula to compare mean values between populations:

n = (2s\^2 (z_(α/2) + z_β))/d\^2, where s2 is the sample variance, α is the type I error, β is the type II error, and d is the minimum difference to be detected. According to previous studies, the variance of the visual analogue scale for pain is equal to 400, and the difference found is 16. Therefore, the following result was obtained: n = (2s\^2 (z_(α/2) + z_β))/d\^2 = 〖2 ∙ 400 ∙ (1.96+0.84)〗\^2/16\^2 = 24.5 = 25 Thus, at least 25 people will be needed in each group to compare the mean values. In this study, 100 patients will be initially recruited, with 50 in each group, in consideration of possible losses.

The analysis of the data will becarried out using the statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The descriptive data will provide the mean values and the standard deviations or the absolute frequencies and percentages depending on whether the variables are scalar or categorical. Shapiro-Wilk tests will be conducted for the inferential analysis to determine the most appropriate test to use. When the data show a normal distribution by groups, a t-test for independent samples will be carried out. Mann-Whitney's U test will be used for the independent samples when there is no normal distribution. For those study variables that will be measured four times, the tests will be conducted in pairs for related samples as well. The t-test will be used if the variables show a normal distribution in the four measurements, and Wilcoxon's signed-rank test will be used for related samples when do not. When statistically significant differences are found according to the P-value, the effect size will be calculated using Cohen's d or Rosenthal's r to analyse the magnitude of the differences. The differences will be classified according to the following for both parameters: below 0.2: no effect; 0.2-0.5: small effect; 0.5-0.8: medium effect; and above 0.8: large effect. The analyses will be based on an intention-to-treat data set.

In the case of the variables for which randomisation produces differences between groups at the initial assessment, repeated-measures analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) with the baseline scores as covariates will be performed to enable comparisons of post-intervention data after adjusting for those differences in the initial scores.

The confidence level a priori is 95%. For missing data (participant withdrawal or interim missing data), the convenience of several missing data models (i.e., 'missing at random', 'missing completely at random' or 'missing not at random') will be classified by the trial personnel (according to available trial data). The most appropriate missing data model will be selected.

Data monitoring will be evaluated in collaboration with an external Statistician, who will also review all the issues related to data collection and analysis during the research process.

02

Conditions studied

  • Chronic Sciatica
  • Foot Deformity

Browse trials for

03

In context

Foot Deformities

50 studies on the registry are indexed under Foot Deformities; 13 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 50 is below the median of 60 across 26 interventional studies indexed under Foot Deformities.

Browse Foot Deformities studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Seville is the lead sponsor of 130 studies on the registry; 39 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 90 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Having lumbar and/or lower extremity pain.
  • Having a medical diagnosis of chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Ulcers within the foot.
  • Diabetes mellitus.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Cognitive deterioration.
  • Previous osteoarticular foot surgery.
  • Concomitant inflammatory rheumatic disease.
  • Need for walking assistance.
  • Being treated with foot orthotics.
  • Refuse to use appropriated and health footwear (with no more than a 3 cm drop, wide and spacious with removable, laced or velcro insole, posterior buttress, medial-lateral stability, and flexibility in metatarsophalangeal area to allow dorsiflexion).
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Investigator)
Enrollment
50 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Custom-made foot orthoses group

    Custom-made foot orthoses will be applied to participants in this arm. The orthoses will consist on a 3-mm thick polypropylene layer from heel to just proximal to the metatarsal heads, and a cover layer of polyethylene foam from heel to toe tips. Both materials will be adapted to the foot positive casts that will be obtained from all participants.

    Device: Custom-made foot orthosis

  • Placebo comparator
    Placebo group

    The placebo orthoses will consist on a 3-mm thick polyethylene foam layer from heel to toe tips and a 0.8-mm thick resin layer from heel to just proximal to the metatarsal heads. None of the materials will be adapted to the foot positive casts.

    Device: Placebo orthosis

Interventions

  • DeviceCustom-made foot orthosis

    The foot orthoses for group A will be custom made using phenolic foam molds of the feet. They consist of a polypropylene layer of 3 mm from heel to just proximal to the metatarsal heads, and an upper sheet of 30 Shore A polyethylene foam.

    Also known as: Foot orthotics, Insole

  • DevicePlacebo orthosis

    A flat insole made of the same material as the upper layer of the custom-made foot orthoses used for group "custom-made foot orthosis".

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Rate of Lumbar pain

    Rate of pain perceived in the lumbar region. Visual analogue scale will be used to record pain at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period, and self-reported pain intensity once a month by phone call will be assessed with an 11-point NPRS with 0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as it can be.

    Time frame: 3 months

  2. Rate of ower limb pain

    Rate of pain perceived in the posterior surface of the lower extremity. Visual analogue scale will be used to record pain at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period, and self-reported pain intensity once a month by phone call will be assessed with an 11-point NPRS with 0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as it can be.

    Time frame: 3 months

  3. Rate of foot pain

    Rate of pain perceived in the foot and ankle region. Visual analogue scale will be used to record pain at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period, and self-reported pain intensity once a month by phone call will be assessed with an 11-point NPRS with 0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as it can be.

    Time frame: 3 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rate of Quality of life

    Self-perceived quality of life assessed by the Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12). This has values between 0 and 100, with higher values corresponding to a lower quality of life.

    Time frame: 3 months

  2. Rate of disability related to the foot

    Disability related to foot pain will be measured using the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI) at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period. The values of this index range from 0 to 38, with higher values corresponding to greater disability.

    Time frame: 3 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Department of Podiatry
    Seville, 41009, Spain
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Blunt SB, Richards PG, Khalil N. Foot dystonia and lumbar canal stenosis. Mov Disord. 1996 Nov;11(6):723-5. doi: 10.1002/mds.870110620. PubMed 8914101 ↗
  • Dananberg HJ, Guiliano M. Chronic low-back pain and its response to custom-made foot orthoses. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1999 Mar;89(3):109-17. doi: 10.7547/87507315-89-3-109. PubMed 10095332 ↗
  • Bird AR, Bendrups AP, Payne CB. The effect of foot wedging on electromyographic activity in the erector spinae and gluteus medius muscles during walking. Gait Posture. 2003 Oct;18(2):81-91. doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362(02)00199-6. PubMed 14654211 ↗
  • Al Kutobi ZTA, Al Omari WRS. The effect of chronic sciatica on the knee and ankle joints. Qatar Medical Journal. 2003; 12(2): 98-100
  • Shabat S, Gefen T, Nyska M, Folman Y, Gepstein R. The effect of insoles on the incidence and severity of low back pain among workers whose job involves long-distance walking. Eur Spine J. 2005 Aug;14(6):546-50. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0824-z. Epub 2005 Jan 25. PubMed 15668775 ↗
  • Pomares Avalos AJ, Lopez Fernandez R, Zaldivar Perez DF. [Validation of the Oswestry disability scale for low back pain in patients with chronic back pain. Cienfuegos, 2017-2018]. Rehabilitacion (Madr). 2020 Jan-Mar;54(1):25-30. doi: 10.1016/j.rh.2019.10.003. Epub 2019 Dec 24. Spanish. PubMed 32007179 ↗
  • Eslami M, Tanaka C, Hinse S, Farahpour N, Allard P. Eslami, M. Effect of foot wedge positions on lower-limb joints, pelvis and trunk angle variability during single-limb stance. Foot (Edinburg) 2006; 16(4): 208-213.
  • Khamis S, Yizhar Z. Effect of feet hyperpronation on pelvic alignment in a standing position. Gait Posture. 2007 Jan;25(1):127-34. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.02.005. Epub 2006 Apr 18. PubMed 16621569 ↗
  • Parker N, Greenhalgh A, Chockalingam N, Dangerfield PH. Positional relationship between leg rotation and lumbar spine during quiet standing. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;140:231-9. PubMed 18810029 ↗
  • Pinto RZ, Souza TR, Trede RG, Kirkwood RN, Figueiredo EM, Fonseca ST. Bilateral and unilateral increases in calcaneal eversion affect pelvic alignment in standing position. Man Ther. 2008 Dec;13(6):513-9. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2007.06.004. Epub 2007 Oct 1. PubMed 17910932 ↗
  • Ghahreman A, Ferch RD, Rao P, Chandran N, Shadbolt B. Recovery of ankle dorsiflexion weakness following lumbar decompressive surgery. J Clin Neurosci. 2009 Aug;16(8):1024-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2008.10.017. Epub 2009 May 9. PubMed 19428255 ↗
  • van Tulder M, Peul W, Koes B. Sciatica: what the rheumatologist needs to know. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2010 Mar;6(3):139-45. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2010.3. Epub 2010 Feb 9. PubMed 20142811 ↗
  • Cambron JA, Duarte M, Dexheimer J, Solecki T. Shoe orthotics for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011 May;34(4):254-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.04.004. Epub 2011 May 5. PubMed 21621727 ↗
  • Tateuchi H, Wada O, Ichihashi N. Effects of calcaneal eversion on three-dimensional kinematics of the hip, pelvis and thorax in unilateral weight bearing. Hum Mov Sci. 2011 Jun;30(3):566-73. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2010.11.011. Epub 2011 Apr 2. PubMed 21459469 ↗
  • O'Leary CB, Cahill CR, Robinson AW, Barnes MJ, Hong J. A systematic review: the effects of podiatrical deviations on nonspecific chronic low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26(2):117-23. doi: 10.3233/BMR-130367. PubMed 23640312 ↗
  • Farokhmanesh K, Shirzadian T, Mahboubi M, Shahri MN. Effect of foot hyperpronation on lumbar lordosis and thoracic kyphosis in standing position using 3-dimensional ultrasound-based motion analysis system. Glob J Health Sci. 2014 Jun 17;6(5):254-60. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n5p254. PubMed 25169004 ↗
  • Resende RA, Deluzio KJ, Kirkwood RN, Hassan EA, Fonseca ST. Increased unilateral foot pronation affects lower limbs and pelvic biomechanics during walking. Gait Posture. 2015 Feb;41(2):395-401. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.10.025. Epub 2014 Nov 3. PubMed 25468683 ↗
  • Park K. Effects of wearing functional foot orthotic on pelvic angle among college students in their 20s with flatfoot. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017 Mar;29(3):438-441. doi: 10.1589/jpts.29.438. Epub 2017 Mar 22. PubMed 28356626 ↗
  • Castro-Mendez A, Munuera PV, Albornoz-Cabello M. The short-term effect of custom-made foot orthoses in subjects with excessive foot pronation and lower back pain: a randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Oct;37(5):384-90. doi: 10.1177/0309364612471370. Epub 2013 Jan 17. PubMed 23327838 ↗
  • Yazdani F, Razeghi M, Karimi MT, Salimi Bani M, Bahreinizad H. Foot hyperpronation alters lumbopelvic muscle function during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture. 2019 Oct;74:102-107. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.08.022. Epub 2019 Aug 31. PubMed 31499403 ↗
  • Kuo FC, Cai DC, Liau BY. Foot Arch Support Effect on Lumbo-Pelvic Kinematics and Centre of Pressure Excursion During Stand-to-Sit Transfer in Different Foot Types. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering. 2020; 40:169-178
  • Marchesini N, Ricci UM, Soda C, Teli M. Acute bilateral foot drop due to lumbar disc herniation treated by bilateral interlaminar approach: case report and literature review. Br J Neurosurg. 2023 Aug;37(4):899-901. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2020.1713992. Epub 2020 Jan 20. PubMed 31955631 ↗
  • Ali HM. Relationship between Lumbar Herniated Disc with Flat Feet. Sys Rev Pharm 2020;11(11):1804-1806.
  • Chou MC, Huang JY, Hung YM, Perng WT, Chang R, Wei JC. Flat foot and spinal degeneration: Evidence from nationwide population-based cohort study. J Formos Med Assoc. 2021 Oct;120(10):1897-1906. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2020.12.019. Epub 2021 Jan 7. PubMed 33423898 ↗
  • Hornestam JF, Arantes PMM, Souza TR, Resende RA, Aquino CF, Fonseca ST, da Silva PLP. Foot pronation affects pelvic motion during the loading response phase of gait. Braz J Phys Ther. 2021 Nov-Dec;25(6):727-734. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2021.04.005. Epub 2021 May 4. PubMed 34020879 ↗
  • Kararti C, Bilgin S, Dadali Y, Buyukturan B, Buyukturan O, Bek N. Are Biomechanical Features of the Foot and Ankle Related to Lumbopelvic Motor Control? J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2021 May 1;111(3):Article_13. doi: 10.7547/18-065. PubMed 31625760 ↗
  • Tanaka J, Takamori Y, Shiokawa T, Shibata R, Nobutou S, Shirachi H, Yamamoto T. Drop foot due to lumbar degenerative disease: Painless drop foot is difficult to recover. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021 Jul;206:106696. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106696. Epub 2021 May 23. PubMed 34059400 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Nov 2022 to primary completion in May 2023, 5 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 28, 2021
First posted
Nov 22, 2021
StartActual
Nov 17, 2022
Primary completionActual
May 15, 2023
CompletionActual
Nov 1, 2024
Last update
Dec 9, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 9, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05129540
Responsible party
Pedro V. Munuera-Martínez (Full Professor, University of Seville) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 22, 2021
Start date
Nov 17, 2022
Primary completion
May 15, 2023
Completion
Nov 1, 2024
Last update
Dec 9, 2024

Study contacts

Pedro V Munuera-Martínez, Ph.D
principal investigator · University of Seville

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Nov 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion