Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

"Retainer" orthotics by AFO-LAB

Posted by Joshua Speckman on 5/03/01 at hrmin (046459)

Anyone ever hear of 'Retainers'? Invented by Jack Glick, DPM (afo-lab.com) in 1993, they are based on the premise that many types of foot pain are caused by specific muskulo-skelatal and biomechanical problems. Specifically he refocuses the biomechanical angle from frontal plane(subtalar pronation) to sagital plane (flattening of midfoot, ankle equinus, etc.) and accentuates the importance of structural degeneration or plastic deformation of the deep plantar ligaments, which once damaged heal in an abnomally elongagated shape, compromising the delicate balance within the arches of the foot. This is all explained well at above web adress.
Anyhow, I'm currenly waiting for a pair to help with chronic PF symptoms and also some pain that seems to be coming from deeper within the medial and lateral arches. Has anyone heard of or used these products before? The biomechanical point of view he uses resonated with many aspects of my experience and I'm excited to be receiving the shortly. However, since they are new and quite different than the traditional podiatric orthotic if anyone has any thoughts or insights after perusing the afo-lab sight let me know.
Thanks in advance. J

Re: "Retainer" explain difference

bg cped on 5/04/01 at 00:11 (046557)

I went to the site and found lots of bogus information. They are trying to re-package things that have already been done. Much of the information is contradictory, and too numerous to comment on. The most obvious is the casting method, it is flawed principle for many reasons. I would encourage regulars to go look and comment. I hope this post was not a spam attempt to increase traffic to the afo site. ALSO if the ideas and principles are so revolutionary, and they have been around since 1992, why dont they list any patents????

Re: "Retainer" explain difference

jspeckman on 5/08/01 at hrmin (046991)

I never eat spam even living in Hawaii two years (they eat more than all other states combined. Are you doc?
My podiatrist had no negative reaction after checking site and speaking with developer Dr. Glick, only curiosity.
I'm no devotee of this company, in fact have yet to recieve retainer. However, having read a bit of the pod. biomech. literature I find nothing in the site that is absolutely bogus or irrefutable.
What are they trying to repackage. I'm aware that much of the site is based on previous research, but I've personally never seen any orthotic to so depart from the Root functional school. Do you know of any.
Perhaps blinded by positive espectations, but the info in site seems fairly logical and balanced though definately a departure from orthodox subtalar neutral, loaded/pronated midtarsal joint casting derived orthotics. Yes, many parts seem strange. More detailed or technical crticism would help discussion

Re: "Retainer" explain difference

bg cped on 5/04/01 at 00:11 (046557)

I went to the site and found lots of bogus information. They are trying to re-package things that have already been done. Much of the information is contradictory, and too numerous to comment on. The most obvious is the casting method, it is flawed principle for many reasons. I would encourage regulars to go look and comment. I hope this post was not a spam attempt to increase traffic to the afo site. ALSO if the ideas and principles are so revolutionary, and they have been around since 1992, why dont they list any patents????

Re: "Retainer" explain difference

jspeckman on 5/08/01 at hrmin (046991)

I never eat spam even living in Hawaii two years (they eat more than all other states combined. Are you doc?
My podiatrist had no negative reaction after checking site and speaking with developer Dr. Glick, only curiosity.
I'm no devotee of this company, in fact have yet to recieve retainer. However, having read a bit of the pod. biomech. literature I find nothing in the site that is absolutely bogus or irrefutable.
What are they trying to repackage. I'm aware that much of the site is based on previous research, but I've personally never seen any orthotic to so depart from the Root functional school. Do you know of any.
Perhaps blinded by positive espectations, but the info in site seems fairly logical and balanced though definately a departure from orthodox subtalar neutral, loaded/pronated midtarsal joint casting derived orthotics. Yes, many parts seem strange. More detailed or technical crticism would help discussion