Efficacy of Plantar Orthoses in Paediatric Flexible Flatfoot: A Five-Year Systematic Review

Abstract

Paediatric flexible flatfoot (PFF) is a very common condition and a common concern among parents and various healthcare professionals. There is a multitude of conservative and surgical treatments, with foot orthoses (FO) being the first line of treatment due to their lack of contraindications and because the active participation of the child is not required, although the evidence supporting them is weak. It is not clear what the effect of FO is, nor when it is advisable to recommend them. PFF, if left untreated or uncorrected, could eventually cause problems in the foot itself or adjacent structures. It was necessary to update the existing information on the efficacy of FO as a conservative treatment for the reduction in signs and symptoms in patients with PFF, to know the best type of FO and the minimum time of use and to identify the diagnostic techniques most commonly used for PFF and the definition of PFF. A systematic review was carried out in the databases PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, Cochrane, SCOPUS and PEDro using the following strategy: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on child patients with PFF, compared to those treated with FO or not being treated, assessing the improvement of signs and symptoms of PFF. Studies in which subjects had neurological or systemic disease or had undergone surgery were excluded. Two of the authors independently assessed study quality. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and the systematic review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021240163. Of the 237 initial studies considered, 7 RCTs and CCTs published between 2017 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria, representing 679 participants with PFF aged 3–14 years. The interventions of the included studies differed in diagnostic criteria, types of FO and duration of treatment, among others. All articles conclude that FO are beneficial, although the results must be taken with caution due to the risk of bias of the included articles. (...)