Effectiveness of a Simple Auditory Feedback Insole (Sim-Insole) for Touchdown Weight-Bearing Training in At-Risk Volunteers with Poor Compliance: A Crossover Study

Chaiyanun Vijittrakarnrung,Udomporn Manupibul,Warakorn Charoensuk,Ratikanlaya Tanthuwapathom,Wimonrat Jarumethitanont,Paphon Sa-Ngasoongsong
2020-11-28
Abstract:Introduction: Recent studies have shown that biofeedback devices are effective for weight-bearing (WB) training. However, these devices have limitations due to high costs and inadequate evidence of their effectiveness among poor-compliance individuals. This study aimed to assess WB compliance after touchdown weight-bearing (TDWB) training by the standard bathroom scale (BS) method and to evaluate the efficacy of our innovative simple auditory feedback device (Sim-Insole). Methods: In this crossover study, healthy volunteers were trained for TDWB (targeting 20% of bodyweight [BW]) with the BS method and assessed with the Sim-Insole without feedback (phase 1), and then completed a 30-min wash-out period and underwent re-assessment with Sim-Insole with feedback (phase 2). Satisfaction was evaluated with a self-assessment questionnaire. Those who had and had not experienced a weight-bearing force (WBF) >25% of BW were classified as high-risk and low-risk groups, respectively. Steps with percentage of WB &15%, 15%-25%, and >25% were defined as under-zone, in-zone, and over-zone, respectively. Results: Fourteen volunteers (70%) were classified as high-risk after the BS method. Without auditory feedback, the high-risk group demonstrated a significantly higher average percentage of WB and higher average lowest WBF compared to the low-risk group (18.8% vs. 13.7% and 74.3N vs. 60.2N, respectively, p=0.002 for both). With the use of auditory feedback with Sim-Insole in the high-risk group, the cadence, percentage of WB, highest absolute WBF, proportion of over-zone step, and confidence for TDWB improved significantly compared to those with the BS method (p&0.05 for all). However, the low-risk group showed only a significant improvement in cadence (p=0.047) and a non-significant trend for improvement in the percentage of WB (p=0.089), compared to the BS method. Conclusion: Sim-Insole is effective for TDWB training. This device significantly improved WB compliance with regard to excessive WB, walking speed, and the confidence of volunteers in the high-risk group with poor compliance.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?