JRSM > Volume 99, Number 1 > Pp. 32-37

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JRSM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Withnall, R. Articles by Freemantle, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Do shock absorbing insoles in recruits undertaking high levels of physical activity reduce lower limb injury? A randomized controlled trial

Richard Withnall¹ Joanne Eastaugh²   Nick Freemantle²

¹ Regional Medical Centre & Regional Rehabilitation Unit, RAF Halton, Aylesbury, Bucks HP22 5PG;
² Department of Primary Care & General Practice, University of Birmingham, UK

Correspondence to: Wing Commander Richard Withnall
E-mail: richwithnall{at}doctors.org.uk

Objectives: To assess the benefits, if any, of the use of shock absorbing insoles in reducing lower limb injury among Air Force recruits, and to assess the differences, if any, in the efficacy of two commonly available shock absorbing insoles.

Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: RAF Halton, UK. Site of all basic training for RAF personnel.

Participants: 1205 recruits participating in basic training between 17 September 2003 and 7 April 2004.

Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive either standard issue Saran non-shock absorbing insoles, or shock absorbing Sorbothane or Poron insoles, on a 1:1:1 basis.

Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was withdrawal from training for lower limb injury. The two primary comparisons were shock absorbing insole versus non-shock absorbing insole, and Sorbothane versus Poron (comparison of different shock absorbing insoles). Secondary outcomes were medical withdrawals for reasons other than those qualifying for the primary outcome measure.

Results: When comparing the non-shock absorbing insole to the shock absorbing insoles 72/401 participants (18.0%) allocated to Saran insoles were removed from training because of a qualifying lower limb injury, compared with 149/804 (18.5%) allocated to the shock absorbing insole (Sorbothane or Poron), odds ratio 1.04 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.44; P=0.87). When comparing the two shock absorbing insole 73/421 participants (17.3%) randomized to Sorbothane were removed from training because of a qualifying lower limb injury, compared with 76/383 for Poron (19.8%), odds ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; P=0.37).

Conclusions: Similar rates of lower limb injuries were observed for all insoles (shock absorbing and non-shock absorbing) in the trial. The trial provides no support for a change in policy to the use of shock absorbing insoles for military recruits.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related articles in JRSM:

Shock absorbing insoles and lower limb injury

Karl B Landorf
JRSM 2006 99: 3-4. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. O'Leary, K. A. Vorpahl, and B. Heiderscheit Effect of Cushioned Insoles on Impact Forces During Running J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, January 1, 2008; 98(1): 36 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Aaltonen, H. Karjalainen, A. Heinonen, J. Parkkari, and U. M. Kujala Prevention of Sports Injuries: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Arch Intern Med, August 13, 2007; 167(15): 1585 - 1592. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P McCrory Learning to love big brother Br. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2006; 40(6): 487 - 487. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Minerva BMJ, January 14, 2006; 332(7533): 128 - 128. [Full Text] [PDF]