Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 197–203 | Cite as

Biomechanics of postoperative shoes: plantar pressure distribution, wearing characteristics and design criteria: a preliminary study

  • Reinhard Schuh
  • Hans-Joerg Trnka
  • Anton Sabo
  • Martin Reichel
  • Karl-Heinz Kristen
Orthopaedic Surgery



Modern concepts in the postoperative treatment of first metatarsal osteotomies include special shoes that should decrease stress in the forefoot region. The purpose of this study was to determine plantar pressure distribution, wearing characteristics and stress-reducing effectiveness of five different types of commonly used postoperative shoes. Additionally, we wanted to modify the shoe that revealed the most favourable results in a way that improves forefoot relief as well as provides comfort to the patients.


Eight persons consented to participate in the study. Plantar pressure distribution in five different types of postoperative shoes (Rathgeber® normal, Rathgeber® modified, 4. Darco® flat, Darco® VFE, Wocker®) was assessed using Mediologic® insoles. Also, subjective criteria considering wearing comfort, stability and rolling characteristics were evaluated. Based on the postoperative shoe revealing the most favourable results, further prototypes were developed. Each new model was targeted to meet the given requirements, minimal forefoot pressure, in a different way.


The Rathgeber® modified model revealed the most favourable results concerning plantar pressure distribution as well as subjective wearing characteristics. Therefore, it was chosen for further modifications. After adding an extra layer of high elastic and springy material for shock absorption at the hallux region, forefoot relief and wearing characteristics showed improved results.


The results of the present study indicate that damping material in the hallux region of postoperative shoes minimises stress in this region and improves patient’s comfort.


Plantar pressure distribution Hallux valgus Postoperative shoes Forefoot relief 


  1. 1.
    Alexander IJ, Chao EY, Johnson KA (1990) The assessment of dynamic foot-to-ground contact forces and plantar pressure distribution: a review of the evolution of current techniques and clinical applications. Foot Ankle 11(3):152–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carl HD, Pfander D, Swoboda B (2006) Assessment of plantar pressure in forefoot relief shoes of different designs. Foot Ankle Int 27(2):117–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cavanagh PR (1987) Pressure distribution under symptom free feet during barefoot standing. Foot Ankle 7:262–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coughlin MJ (1996) Hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(6):932–966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Easley ME, Trnka HJ (2007) Current concept review: hallux valgus part II: operative treatment. Foot Ankle Int 29(4):748–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacob HAC (2001) Forces acting in the forefoot during normal gait—an estimate. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16:783–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein MS, Ognibene FA, Erali RP, Hendrix CL (1990) Self-tapping screw fixation of the Austin osteotomy. J Foot Surg 29(1):52–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kristen KH, Berger K, Berger C, Kampla W, Anzbock W, Weitzel SH (2005) The first metatarsal bone under loading conditions: a finite element analysis. Foot Ankle Clin 10(1):1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lorei T, Klarner H, Rosenbaum D (2006) Influence of postoperative shoes on plantar pressure patterns. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 144(2):153–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nawoczenski DA, Birke JA, Coleman WC (1988) Effect of rocker sole design on plantar forefoot pressures. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 78(9):455–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Notni A, Fuhrmann RA (1999) Measuring plantar weight distribution of shoes with forefoot support. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 137(3):280–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nyska M, McCabe C, Linge K, Laing P, Klenerman L (1995) Effect of the shoe on plantar foot pressures. Acta Orthop Scand 66(1):53–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quinn MR, DiStazio JJ, Kruljac SJ (1987) Herbert bone screw fixation of the Austin bunionectomy. J Foot Surg 26(6):516–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson AH, Limbers JP (2005) Modern concepts in the treatment of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(8):1038–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenbaum D, Hautmann S, Gold M, Claes L (1994) Effects of walking speed on plantar pressure patterns and hindfoot angular motion. Gait Posture 2:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaff PS, Cavanagh PR (1990) Shoes for the insensitive foot: the effect of a “rocker bottom” shoe modification on plantar pressure distribution. Foot Ankle 11(3):129–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trnka HJ (2005) Osteotomies for hallux valgus correction. Foot Ankle Clin 10(1):15–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trnka HJ, Parks BG, Ivanic G, Chu IT, Easley ME, Schon LC, Myerson MS (2000) Six-first metatarsal shaft osteotomies: mechanical and immobilization comparisons. Clin Orthop Relat Res 381:256–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Schie C, Ulbrecht JS, Becker MB, Cavanagh PR (2000) Design criteria for rigid rocker shoes. Foot Ankle Int 21(10):833–844PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhard Schuh
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hans-Joerg Trnka
    • 3
  • Anton Sabo
    • 4
  • Martin Reichel
    • 4
  • Karl-Heinz Kristen
    • 3
  1. 1.Gait Analysis LabFoot and Ankle Center ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.Foot and Ankle Center ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department of Sports Engineering and BiomechanicsUniversity of Applied Science, Technikum WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations