Talk:Orthotics

Foot: the great and powerful shock absorber
In the U.K, orthotics are provided by orthotists. However, podiatrists may provide foot orthoses (and with additional training, ankle foot orthoses). In addition, I know that occupational therapists and orthopaedic practitioners provide orthotic devices for the upper limb. Should there be some mention of these professions? I see there is a mention of pedorthists, which I understand to be a U.S-specific profession.. JTT Young (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)J Young

There was an interesting little factoid in the podiatrics section:
 * As shock absorbers, feet cushion up to one million pounds of pressure during one hour of strenuous exercise.

What kind of perversion of mathematics is this? I wasn't aware that pressure is a measurement that can be compounded over time ;) ~ Booya Bazooka 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the "Foot orthotics" section at the end? I'm no expert, but the whole friggin' ARTICLE is about "foot orthotics." I didn't even think there was any other type of orthotics, although apparently there can be. Foxmulder 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, most parts of the article are about foot orthosis. Someone has coppied parts from a homepage mentioned in the External Links. Nine paragraphs are from the homepage http://www.hss.edu/Conditions/Orthotics/Prescription-Foot-Orthotics, these are the nine paragraphs starting right under the pictures of the foot orthosis. You can find the copied paragraphs under the headline "Custom / Prefabricated". That means either someone has offended copy rights or someone wanted to place his advertisement on wikipedia. However, I would recommend to delete the mentioned paragraphs. At least these paragraphs should be moved to "Foot Orthotics" because they are abaout foot orthotics. Its also necessary to shorten the text and to summarise them, not only because of copy rights, but because of repetitions.Oliver Münz 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

the Greeks would have solved this problem with a war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbengurion (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 July 2006

Somehow in the changes the first paragraph of the article no longer made sense, so I reverted back a few edits to Booyabazooka's latest, including the addition and subsequent deletion of the aforementioned commercial link. By the way, I came looking for this article trying to figure out what "social orthotics" were, so apparently there are orthoses for things besides feet. I'm presuming a social orthotic is some hypothetical technological tool for helping autistic people navigate social interactions more smoothly. But I'm just guessing so I don't want to write anything. Cbogart2 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why only for injuries?
The fourth and fifth sentences of this article seem to contradict each other. Even if you aren't an "Individual.....(who has)sustained a physical impairment such as a stroke, spinal cord injury, or a congenital abnormality such as spina bifida or cerebral palsy", why wouldn't you want a product that "allow(s)the muscles, tendons and bones of the feet and lower legs to function at their highest potential"? What about people wih plantar fasciitis,neuromas and bunions (HAV)?

Indeed, why would an enlightened person wait for disease to be the reason to correct poor foot function? By the time pain and deformity are obvious the condition may be too advanced to cure without the extreme measures of surgery, constant medication, or a plethora of adaptive pads or special shoes. Arches tend to collapse progressively over time due to the relentless effects of gravity, hard and flat floors, obesity and sedentary lifestyles. As the arch collapses, the foot becomes increasingly less able to resist over-pronation after heel strike or re-sunpinate for push-off. Such loss of healthy foot function leads to adaptive changes such as bunion, mortonn's neuroma, metatarsalgia, plantarfasciitis, etc. A proper orthotic can restore healthy foot posture and function and thus prevent these common conditions.

The fact is our bodies were designed to walk on dirt, sand and grass,...soft, natural surfaces that support the arch and allow flexibility. The world has only been paved for a short time, relatively speaking, and hard surfaces were only necessary since the invention of wheeled transportation, not feet.

Therefore, the 26 bones and 19 muscle and tendon groups in the foot are being weakened with each step in hard shoes on hard surfaces. If we wear a well-designed and -fitted orthotic, we can all function at our "highest potential."

- In addition, some knee braces (knee orthoses/ KOs) are categorised as prophylactic by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. JTT Young (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)J Young

1000 miles per year?
Can someone get a citation for humans walking an average of 1000 miles per year? I find this hard to believe. That's almost 3 miles per day. I don't believe that the average person walks 3 miles per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.170.102 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text

Primarily a commercial for specific types of orthotics
Recommend adding the non-NPOV message and the original research message. This article breaks both the NPOV and the unverified claims rules. Very few citations are given for the benefits of orthotics or the non-benefit of the plaster-cast type. One of the few references goes to a commercial site which is apparently copied into the article. I'm not podiatrist, but there must be professional journals and papers that can help support the claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miqel (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

there is a divergence in the use of this word amongst health care professionals. one camp believes the word describes an entire science and profession, the other camp uses the word to describe an end product. in that wikipedia is profoundly a part of the new world order, it would seem appropriate to forego grammatical correctness and encumber both descriptions of the the word's use- even it is cumbersome(orthoses are constantly accused of being cumbersome) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.64.141.9 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally non-NPOV article, very similar in tone to commercial messages by manufacturers of orthotic inserts which start with precise sounding statistics, and go on to make claims of fixing multiple conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.38.164 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

possible copyright violation
I have listed this article as a possible copyright violation of http://www.northhoustonchiropractic.net/site/customfootorthotics.html - see Copyright problems/2010 March 20

The earliest versions of this article are a one-sentence stub that are not worth reverting to. Further history is complex and it appears that this or other copyrighted content may have been added, edited, removed and re-added previously. There may be a non-infringing early revision with significant content but I don't have time at the moment to find it if it exists.

Although the source url has a copyright statement of 2009 and the content in the WP article appears before then, it really does not read like a Wikipedia article and is more what I would expect from a commercial site like North Houston Chiropractic, or another similar source.

I don't have the time to do further investigation now, hence listing it at Copyright problems where others with time and expertise should hopefully be able to sort out what is happening here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While the source tagged was a backwards infringement issue, given that content in their page evolved naturally in the Wikipedia article, copyrighted content was introduced very early and retained through the present version. I have restored the last verifiably clean and will give the contributor of that content, who may be in position to authorize its use, notice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy
In copyediting this article I removed the following, since it had been stated more than once:

An orthotist is a clinician involved with assessment and/or evaluation, design, fabrication of an orthosis or orthoses.

Licensure in some states of the USA may also be required for these medical professionals. The orthotist maintains certification through the mandatory continuing-education program of the board under which s/he is certified, and adherence to the board's Code of Professional Responsibility is compulsory.

Wi2g 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

photo for Orthotics#Ankle-foot_orthosis_.28AFOs.29
Does File:Unterschenkel Orthese Keile.jpg fit at Orthotics. If yes please put it in. If not please correct the image's description. I tried to translate from German. Cheers --Saibo ( Δ ) 15:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Variants of spelling
The relevant guideline is WP:ENGVAR. Anyone want to make a case for favoring one spelling over another? --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has no regional or national significance with respect to MOS:TIES, so, per MOS:RETAIN, I'd say American. The first non-stub version is inconsistent in its usage; it refers to "orthopaedic braces" but also "orthopedic surgery".  The earlier stub versions use American spelling in "othopedics", which was kept unchanged in the first non-stub version, so I'd say the precedent goes to American.  After reading more of MOS:RETAIN, it says that, to break ties, we should keep going forward for the non-stub versions, instead of going back to the stub versions, and in this edit, the original author removes the only instance of American spelling that he added (although he did not correct the American spelling that was already in the article), so I guess it goes to British, actually. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Canada
An ip has been repeatedly deleting the Canada section without comment. It looks like the section could be better referenced and rewritten with a more neutral tone. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've declined the request for a WP:3O for this issue; there appears to be no discussion yet, so a 3O request is a little premature. (The request for the above issue can also be considered declined, although I did decide to respond anyway.  Such are the vagaries of 3O.)  Anyhoo, the idea of 3O is that it's used to break a deadlock in discussion between two editors, not force one to the table or serve as a proxy.  3O Wikipedians have no special authority whatsoever (if anything, we have less authority than any other random editor), so bringing us into a dispute where there's no discussion really just can't resolve anything.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to get editors involved that are more interested in the subject than I, and get the other editor to engage in proper dispute resolution. I'm seeing a lot of improvement with the latter. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Calipers
Caliper (disambiguation) leads here: should the article mention the words “calipers”? And if it does, it might use the the BBC article Ouch Blog: Viewpoint: Does this Spastics Society statue start the right conversations? JDAWiseman (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should. I was specifically looking for information on cal(l)ipers (in the splint sense) and was referred here from the abovementioned disambiguation page -- yet the article does not even mention the term! -- Picapica (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AFO Ankle Foot Orthosis Orthotic Brace.JPG

Time to split this article?
I think it's time to split this article. has done a lot of work to expand it recently. However I think much of the detail could be split off to articles about various types/classes of orthotics, so that this article can be a simpler overview or introduction for the broad concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Great work here . What would your suggestions to split it be? Orthotist would be good to split off as a profession. I may be able to recruit someone in the field to help read through some of this as well. JenOttawa (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello JenOttawa, I have no idea how one could divide the article Orthoses in such a way that the overall overview of the orthosis types is retained. I think it makes sense to stick with one article for now. Until two months ago there was no complete overview of the variety of different types of orthoses, which for many years led to a lot of confusion and misinformation in the media and also in medicine. I would like to explain to the public how differentiated one has to evaluate the various possibilities of orthoses so that those affected are actually provided with aids that are also effective. Hello again Roger (Dodger67) and JenOttawa, Maybe it makes sense to transfer the chapter 7 "Orthotist" in its own article. What do you think?
 * Thanks for the quick reply . I like the idea of splitting off Orthotist as a profession and then we can wait and see what would make the most sense for the rest. One option could be to use "Orthotics" as the general intro and then have individual articles on types of orthotics once those sections get too long. AFOs is really thorough, for example and could almost be ready to make an article. Not rush on this though and we can take our time to consider. Right AFOs are in two different categories (paralysis and relief) so this is not super straight forward either. Foot orthoses (for relief) also could be developed into an article eventually, since they are a commonly used orthotic device. JenOttawa (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another quick consideration- we could see if there is a Prosthetist article and if both are going to be stubs, we could consider combining for now. JenOttawa (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello JenOttawa, thanks for the good suggestions and the work on the reviews. I think the idea is good to describe Ortotist and Prosthetist in one article. In the article, the occupational groups could be described as they are treated in each country. This has already been started for some countries in the Orthotics article below, although countries such as the Scandinavian countries and Germany have not yet been mentioned. In these countries in particular, training for the professions mentioned works differently than in the countries already mentioned. It really makes sense to me to remove the education section of the professional group from this article the more I think about it. However, this is also a lot of work if it is to be implemented well.
 * Hi and  (and any other volunteers who are helping)! Well I was feeling bold this morning and tried my best to move the content to a new article for the time being. This gives time to decide if Orthotist and Prosthetist should be merged or developed as separate articles. Please do let me know if you see any mistakes in what I have done! . JenOttawa (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello JenOttawa,great job and thank you very much. I will also deal a little with the article orthotist in the next few days.

Do you think the notice for spliting the article can be removed? Who can remove the notice? Orthokin What do you think of that Dodger67
 * Split notice removed. If a further split is needed (AFOs or foot orthosis we could re-add anytime. Thanks for offering to help.JenOttawa (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

'Multiple Issues' warning
Hi, I have not had time to review all of the recent improvements but I feel that the sources and content that I have seen added are decent enough to justify removing the warning. Does anyone disagree that we no longer need it here? I will leave the intention to split memo. JenOttawa (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree, the issues are no longer "multiple". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Copy edit, remaining issues
I’ve just completed a “drive by” copy edit as part of the July GOCE backlog elimination drive, so just ignore me if there’s some context I’m missing, but more than a few times I was tempted to revert and tag as beyond the scope of a copy edit. There’s a bunch of issues here:

~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 09:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * AFOs should be spun off into their own article. ProseSize puts the whole thing at just under 6,300 words, but less than 800 of those are not in the lower extremity section, so that’s around 5.5k words on orthotics for the lower extremities. Versus one uncited sentence for the head.
 * It’s like this article is trying to be an explanation of the types of orthotics, but also an in depth look at how they are prescribed, right down to the exact tests done depending on the diagnosis.
 * Some sections have only one citation, or none at all.
 * A bunch of the technical terms are just not defined anywhere. Sentences like this mean absolutely nothing if you don’t already have some biomechanical knowledge: “In addition, the patient cannot influence the shock absorption when walking (gait phase, loading response), as the eccentric work of the dorsiflexors is limited.”