Merton Root DPM vs Edward Glaser DPM vs Orthpedists MD

[DPMer]

---

Members do not see this ad.

In your practices and in residency training, do you follow more of Merton Root, DPM or Edward Glaser, DPM when it comes to podiatric biomechanics/pathomechanics cases of the foot and ankle? Or combination of both? Thanks all.

 

[birdieDPM]

One of them was a great innovator and the other is a snake oil saleman that the gullible fall for. Which one is which?

If your choice in biomechanics come down to those two, then you have a lot of learning to do.

 

[PADPM]

Apparently birdieDPM has issues with "one" of the doctors you mentioned above. I can tell you that although my feelings are not as strong, Glaser's theories certainly haven't been around long enough for most doctors to have implemented them for a long time, and I'm not sure they are taught in the schools. I know some docs who are intrigued by some of Glaser's thoughts, but I'm not convinced yet.

Admittedly, biomechanics is not my strongest asset, though you certainly have to have a decent concept to perform surgery successfully. So, at this point I would say I'm in Root's camp.

But I'm not sure what you mean by your third choice when you ask if we follow the prinicples of allopathic/MD orthopedists. There are consistencies among both professions.

 

[347932]

I am firmly in the Root camp. I read his book a couple of times (and Valmassy's) and am intrigued by his theories.

Please remember that everything we discuss within the Biomechanical realm is theory. There has been no firm proof that can be cited to solidify either as THE theory, so it's a matter of your understanding and whether your brain can wrap itself around one vs. the other. We can argue which is better all we want, but until we have a way of measuring bone angles during full motion gait accurately, all we can do is theorize.

What I've been waiting for for years is a way to do full motion studies using an MRI type device during gait. Even the best F-Scans in the world have to "guesstimate" and at one time there was a device that measured CT scans at various positions of the foot (on a table, not in full stance) and then algorithmically theorized where the bones "should" be with regard to the previous and next position shown on the CT. It was a neat little device but was hardly accurate enough to really prove or disprove one theory vs. the other.

That's just me though.

 

[Podfather]

I am firmly in the Root camp. I read his book a couple of times (and Valmassy's) and am intrigued by his theories.

Please remember that everything we discuss within the Biomechanical realm is theory. There has been no firm proof that can be cited to solidify either as THE theory, so it's a matter of your understanding and whether your brain can wrap itself around one vs. the other. We can argue which is better all we want, but until we have a way of measuring bone angles during full motion gait accurately, all we can do is theorize.

What I've been waiting for for years is a way to do full motion studies using an MRI type device during gait. Even the best F-Scans in the world have to "guesstimate" and at one time there was a device that measured CT scans at various positions of the foot (on a table, not in full stance) and then algorithmically theorized where the bones "should" be with regard to the previous and next position shown on the CT. It was a neat little device but was hardly accurate enough to really prove or disprove one theory vs. the other.

That's just me though.

I post the rearfoot with a 7.3 mm screw across the sub-talar joint. Biomechanics Podfather style LOL.

 

[DPMer]

Apparently birdieDPM has issues with "one" of the doctors you mentioned above. I can tell you that although my feelings are not as strong, Glaser's theories certainly haven't been around long enough for most doctors to have implemented them for a long time, and I'm not sure they are taught in the schools. I know some docs who are intrigued by some of Glaser's thoughts, but I'm not convinced yet.

Admittedly, biomechanics is not my strongest asset, though you certainly have to have a decent concept to perform surgery successfully. So, at this point I would say I'm in Root's camp.

But I'm not sure what you mean by your third choice when you ask if we follow the prinicples of allopathic/MD orthopedists. There are consistencies among both professions.

Thanks doctor PADPM for the first two. The third choice: never mind. omit. my bad...

 

[PADPM]

I post the rearfoot with a 7.3 mm screw across the sub-talar joint. Biomechanics Podfather style LOL.

👍

 

[DPMer]

I post the rearfoot with a 7.3 mm screw across the sub-talar joint. Biomechanics Podfather style LOL.

As long as Podfather has the STJ in neutral position for the arthrodesis (STJ neutral being the most "comfortable" and "stable" foot position without any symptomatology for the patient, according to Dr. Root).

 

[DPMer]

I am firmly in the Root camp. I read his book a couple of times (and Valmassy's) and am intrigued by his theories.

Please remember that everything we discuss within the Biomechanical realm is theory. There has been no firm proof that can be cited to solidify either as THE theory, so it's a matter of your understanding and whether your brain can wrap itself around one vs. the other. We can argue which is better all we want, but until we have a way of measuring bone angles during full motion gait accurately, all we can do is theorize.

What I've been waiting for for years is a way to do full motion studies using an MRI type device during gait. Even the best F-Scans in the world have to "guesstimate" and at one time there was a device that measured CT scans at various positions of the foot (on a table, not in full stance) and then algorithmically theorized where the bones "should" be with regard to the previous and next position shown on the CT. It was a neat little device but was hardly accurate enough to really prove or disprove one theory vs. the other.

That's just me though.

Does Valmassy follow the Root school of thought in his textbook on foot and ankle biomechanics/pathomechanics? Or did Valmassy expand more on Root's ideas with more of his own? Thanks,

 

[347932]

Does Valmassy follow the Root school of thought in his textbook on foot and ankle biomechanics/pathomechanics? Or did Valmassy expand more on Root's ideas with more of his own? Thanks,

It's just more of an interesting read than anything else really.

 

[air bud]

I am reading Root's chapter on Forefoot pathologies due to abnormal pronation. Great read, easy to follow. He states things multiple times in multiple styles so it really sticks. I have read some of Valmasseys book, but I definitely like Root better now.

 

[347932]

I am reading Root's chapter on Forefoot pathologies due to abnormal pronation. Great read, easy to follow. He states things multiple times in multiple styles so it really sticks. I have read some of Valmasseys book, but I definitely like Root better now.

I enjoyed reading Root better, too. Sometimes it is a little dense, though.

Don't forget, it's all theory. No proof yet.