I think that if you go back to the definitions created
by the O & P discipline, you will find a definition
that applied regardless of your specific theoretical
framework. This is critical because an FFO is an FFO,
whereas a Root FFO is a specific animal, and a Sagital
Plane FFO is an entirely different animal. This holds
up quite well when we look at definitions for AFOs, for
example - a dorsiflex-assist AFO is different from a
lateral stabilization AFO, but all AFOs can be lumped
together under an umbrella definition for AFOs in
general.
This approach tends to fall in line with general
orthopedic practices across a multiple of disciplines,
and still allows room for discrimination between
specific theoretical frameworks as applied to FFOs.
Notty
Craig Payne wrote:
>
> >Functional Foot Orthoses and
>
> I remeber having this discussion a year or so ago and we never ended up on
> agreeing. I seem to remeber suggesting that the defn of a FFO as being an
> orthoses based on a particular theroretical framework.
>
> Kind Regards
> CP
> ______
> \\_ _//
> ( @ @ )
> ****************************************o00o-()-o00o**********
> Craig Payne email: [log in to unmask]
> Department of Podiatry phone: (+61)(3) 9479 5820
> School of Human Biosciences fax: (+61)(3) 9479 5784
> Faculty of Health mobile: (+61)(0419) 103327
> LaTrobe University
> Bundoora, Vic 3083
> Australia http://www.health.latrobe.edu.au/hs/schools/pod/home
> *************************************************0ooo.********
> .ooo0 ( )
> ( ) ) /
> \ ( (_/
> \_)
--
Notty Bumbo
Level Best Consulting
[log in to unmask]
Taking Business to the Next Level,
By the Best Approach
Performance improvement isn't just
for the big guys anymore.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
