RSS FeedBaseball Shoes Nike Youth
The following articles report on research completed, in whole or in part, under a grant from ACFAOM. Thanks to all those whose voluntary contributions to ACFAOM's Research Fund make such grants possible. Comparing Negative Casting Techniques: Foam versus Plaster of Paris Richard Berenter, DPM, FACFAOM Introduction: This study was undertaken to determine whether there was any difference in the clinical outcomes related to the type of negative casting technique utilized in the manufacture of functional foot orthoses. Those practitioners who favor foam casting blocks argue that the technique is cleaner, faster, more cost effective and just as reliable a method to produce functional foot orthoses versus the plaster of Paris technique. On the other hand, a number of practitioners have argued that the foam block technique is inferior because the foam is incapable of capturing the shape of the foot with the subtalar joint in neutral position and the midtarsal joint maximally pronated thereby leading to an inferior foot orthosis, which will be less effective at reducing patient symptoms. Materials and Methods: A total of 38 patients were enrolled in the study. All of the patients presented with lower extremity symptoms associated with abnormal lower extremity function as determined by gait evaluation. At the time of the initial visit, each patient signed a consent form and completed the top portion of the data sheet which included both personal information and the amount of pain in each extremity (patients were asked to circle the amount of pain on a scale from 0-10 with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worse pain ever felt). Upon completion of all paper work, both feet of each patient were casted via the semi-weight bearing foam block technique and by the non-weight bearing supine plaster of Paris method. Both sets of casts were sent to a professional orthotic laboratory with a prescription filled out for an orthotic shell with a medium amount of arch fill, average heel cup depth, normal orthotic width (to the lateral border of the 5th metatarsal and bisection of the 1st metatarsal shaft) and a thickness of polypropylene which would behave in a semi-rigid behavior for the patient's stated weight. A laboratory technician was instructed to randomly select one of the two pairs of negative casts and keep track of which casts were used without the knowledge of the principal investigator. In this way, a double blind study was established since neither the principal investigator nor the patient knew which casts were used to construct the foot orthotics. Approximately 2-3 weeks following casting, the patient was dispensed a pair of functional foot orthoses and asked to walk around for a minimum of 10 minutes to gauge the comfort level of the orthotics. Each participant was asked to use one of 4 descriptive terms (very comfortable, comfortable, slightly uncomfortable or very uncomfortable) to describe the comfort level of 5 different regions on each foot orthosis corresponding to the heel region, medial arch, lateral arch, middle of the orthosis and distal edge. Patients were then sent home with standardized break-in instructions for the functional foot orthoses and returned to the clinic at intervals of 2 weeks and 4 weeks post-orthotic dispensal. At each follow-up visit, patients were asked to fill out a data sheet gauging the level of symptoms and comfort level of the orthoses. The data was then compiled and saved in a spread sheet format and upon completion of the study, the laboratory technician was contacted in order to identify which patients belonged to which study group, the foam box or plaster of Paris casting technique. Results: The data was compiled and the two study groups separated by casting technique. An independent investigator (non-podiatrist) was contacted and asked to analyze the data to answer the following questions: 1. Does the negative casting technique (foam vs. plaster) make a difference in the ability of the orthotic device to reduce symptoms? 2. Does the negative casting technique (foam vs. plaster) make a difference in how comfortable the orthotic device feels to the patient? The data was analyzed in a variety of methods such as the mean reduction of pain, Fischer exact test and Chi-square with T-tests. A simple comparison of the average reduction of pain after four weeks of orthotic therapy indicates that the plaster of Paris orthoses achieved a mean decrease of 82.43% of pain versus 61.14% reduction in pain with foam box cast orthoses, with a level of significance phttp://www.TallTall.com
About the Author:
Chris Maylor is the owner and operator of Serendipity Shoe Lifts at http://www.TallTall.com
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com - Latest Research on Elevator Shoe Lifts
 |
Nike Youth Keystone Pro Low Baseball Cleat Shoes-Black/White List Price: $35.00  |
|
Nike Youth Keystone Pro Low Baseball Cleat Shoes-Black/WhiteItem Features:Interchangeable Color panels to change the color of the swooshExtra Heel Support CushionSwoosh on both sides of shoeVelcro tongue Flap to keep your laces in placecomfortable footbed |
 |
Nike Kids NIKE BLADE II SHARK (BG) KIDS BASEBALL CLEATS List Price: $50.00 |
|
No Description |
 |
Air Jordan Jeter Cut (Kids) |
|
Air Jordan Jeter Cut Training Shoes |
Nike baseball turf shoes pt 2
|
|
Nike Core Youth Baseball Pant $15.99 Nike Core Youth Baseball Pant. Poly warp knit baseball pant with reinforced knees for durability Brass zipper and two metal snap closures Two back pockets and performance five-belt loop system Elastic leg openings 100% polyester |
|
|
Nike Baseball Uniform Belt $11.99 Nike Baseball Uniform Belt. Heavy duty elastic band and silver-look hardware. White debossed Swoosh design trademark. Fabric: Tab, 100% Leather; Belt, 100% Polyester. Adult: Waist sizes- 28'' to 43''. Youth: Waist sizes- 20'' to 34'' |
|
|
Nike 2011 Aero CX2 (-11) Youth Baseball Bat $249.99 Nike 2011 Aero CX2 (-11) Youth Baseball Bat. Nike 2011 Aero CX2 (-11) Youth Baseball Bat - Maximizing distance through impact power. 42 layers of Cross React Carbon Multi-Wall composite form a multi-wall barrel with increased stiffness and maximized explosive power. Power Belt technology maximizes the size of the sweep spot. Speedlink System composite handle with composite barrel is balanced for power, engineered to flex for quicker acceleration, and tuned for reduced vibration and solid feel at contact. Patented Aero-Capis 3% more aerodynamic than traditional cupped-end bats for increased bat speed and additional power. |
|
|
Nike 2012 Aero MC2 (-12) Youth Baseball Bat $199.99 Nike 2012 Aero MC2 (-12) Youth Baseball Bat. 2-piece, ultra-high performance, lightweight youth baseball bat Speedlink System composite handle with alloy barrel is balanced for bat speed, engineered to flex for quicker acceleration, and tuned for reduced vibration and solid feel at contact Patented Aero-Cap is 3% more aerodynamic than traditional cupped-end bats for increased bat speed and additional power Zr91 Alloy improves the barrels contact surface for bigger explosive hits Precision Barrel Structure optimizes responsiveness of hitting area Durable automotive clearcoat Cushioned synthetic-leather grip offers exceptional feel and durability -12 length-to-weight ratio, 2 1/4'' barrel diameter 50% Aluminum, 45% Composite, 5% Plastic Meets 1.15 BPF standard * Approved for play in Little League, Babe Ruth, Dixie Youth Baseball, Pony Baseball and AABC |
 |
 Brett Bros Ionic Titanium Necklace Navy White Small  US $4.95
|
 Phiten X30 Razor Titanium Necklace Grey Red – 22 Inch US $33.25
|
 Nike Ribbie Jr Youth Baseball Shoes Size 4 US $7.50
|
Posted in 
Tags: 
