Ray Anthony wrote:
> 
> >>Prior1pod wrote:
> >
> > I think what you are saying here is that by inverting the rearfoot, the
> > forefoot must evert to maintain ground contact.<<
> 
> Chip replied
> 
> >Close, Trev, but instead of "ground contact", what I am saying is that
> as the RF inverts, the FF must Evert in order to maintain Loading (or
> Locking) forces on the forefoot. <<

Ray comments
 
>  I often achieve this effect with a Phillips modified Root device, where
> the forefoot has been balanced to position the rearfoot inverted and the
> device actually maintains the heel inverted to the ground and stops STJ
> pronation to heel vertical. The Blake device is not the only device that
> can achieve this effect.

Chip queries

I have known Daryl Phillips for many years.  Do you mean to say that he
went and figured out a functional adapptation and never mentioned it? 
That is rather like Daryl.  However, what I want most to express here is
that I am not suggesting a Blake design is the only possible solution to
this problem, simply one of the better ones I have seen.  I would like
to know more about this Phillips modification.
> 
> Trev continued:
> 
> >>The amount of eversion that
> > can occur will depend on MTJ motion plus 1st ray plantarflexion and 5th
> ray
> > dorsiflexion, and perhas some dorsiflexion of the forefoot. <<
> 
> And Chip replied:
> 
> >Yes, that is exactly right!  What I see the Blake device doing (when it
> is done well) is to drop the 1st ray on an exagerated intrinsic post,
> while at the same time loading the lateral column.<
> 
> Again, a Lundeen type modified medial addition (or a shell cut narrow so
> that the distal-medial tip of the shell falls lateral to the shaft of the
> 1st metatarsal head) added to a Phillips modified Root device will also
> allow this. It's not just the Blake device.

Did not mean to imply it was.  But, Ray, how many labs are willing to
risk cutting a negative cast longitudinally and then again transversely.
Then run a rod down the middle while reconfiguring the shape to
accomodate this kind of correction?  I sent out the Lundeen article a
couple of times asking if different labs would try it out.  Aside from
snickering, I rarely heard anything beyond "SUUURRRRE".  Whenever I
asked to send back the positives, they always got lost in the mail. It
is a very difficult modification to do. 
But then again, I suppose the Blake device is too.

I am always interested in any device which brings the rearfoot closer to
a reproducibly functional result.

G'Day Mate

Chip S.

************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> Charles C. Southerland Jr. D.P.M., FACFAS, FACFAOM
> Professor of Podiatric Orthopedics & Biomechanics
> Barry University School of Graduate Medical Sciences-Podiatric Medicine
> 
> email- [log in to unmask] OR [log in to unmask]
> snail mail - c/o Barry University School of Grad. Med. Sci. - POD
>                  11300 NE 2nd Avenue
>                  Miami Shores, FL. 33161
> 
>     |         |  Tel. Campus - (305)899-3244 (Tues. & Thurs.)
>     |  o    o |  FAX  Campus - (305)899-3253
>      \   ||  /   Tel. Clinic - (305)693-7189 (Mon. Wed. & Fri.)
>       \ \__//    FAX Clinic  - (305)694-9616
>       |\   /     Tel. Home   - (305)751-6660
>      /  | | \
>      \ |   |/
>       |     |
>     ( \_____/)   "If the Heavens are Gods Throne, and the Earth is his
>                   Footstool (Isaiah 66:1), what is the greatest of all
>                   Professions?"
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%