Background: The management of diabetic foot disease and knee osteoarthritis (OA) with smart orthotics holds significant importance during the early stages of these conditions, given their potential consequences, including functional impairment, chronic pain, and economic burden. Real-time monitoring of plantar foot pressure enables early detection of abnormal force distribution and gait biomechanics, allowing for the redirection of forces away from affected ulcers or arthritic joints. This is the first systematic review to synthesise clinical evidence for smart orthotics technology with real-time plantar pressure sensor biofeedback across both diabetic foot ulcer prevention and knee osteoarthritis management simultaneously. A search of the PROSPERO register confirmed no existing registration covers this specific combination.
Objectives: To examine the clinical evidence for the use of standard and smart orthotics in the prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and knee OA, and to evaluate their impact on plantar pressure redistribution, ulcer recurrence, pain, biomechanics, and economic burden. Eligibility criteria: Studies published in English involving human adult participants (≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (at risk of DFU or with peripheral neuropathy) or knee OA, where the intervention involved any orthotic device or smart/intelligent insole with clinical outcomes reported, were included. Studies on healthy individuals only, those not reporting participant age, and non-weight-bearing protocols not differentiated from weight-bearing were excluded. Information sources: Five databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, MA, USA), PubMed Advanced (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Wiley Online Library (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA), Cochrane Library (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK), and Google Scholar (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA). Searches were completed in May 2026.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review. This review was structured and reported with reference to the PRISMA 2020 statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada) to guide transparency of reporting. It does not constitute a full Cochrane-style systematic review; risk of bias assessment was applied to key included studies and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada) certainty ratings were applied informally and narratively rather than as formal per-outcome evidence profiles. Five databases were searched yielding 92,637 records. After removal of 398 duplicates by Rayyan, 92,239 records remained. A subsequent automated keyword-based relevance filter applied within Rayyan (Rayyan AI, Doha, Qatar), prior to human screening, excluded 84,572 records that did not contain any terms related to orthotics, diabetic foot, or knee osteoarthritis, yielding 7667 records for human title/abstract screening. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted owing to the heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures across included studies, which precluded meta-analysis. This review was not prospectively registered. A complete list of all 78 included studies, including those not individually discussed in the results and discussion. Results: The available clinical studies report promising findings for orthotics and smart orthotics in pain reduction, ulcer prevention, and potential reduction in economic burden, though conclusions are limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and predominantly open-label designs. Recent research found that orthotics can be used to alter the gait pattern that influences knee OA by reducing excessive force on the affected joint. A randomised controlled trial demonstrated an 80% relative risk reduction in DFU recurrence (RR = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06–0.79;
p = 0.022), with absolute event rates of 6.3% in the intervention group versus 30.8% in controls (ARR = 24.5%); a second trial reported a 71% reduction in ulcer incidence over 18 months; and a third randomised controlled trial demonstrated statistically significant plantar pressure reduction (
p < 0.01) in patients with diabetic neuropathy. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that orthotics may be associated with improved pressure redistribution, reduced ulcer incidence, and benefit in the management of knee OA. Although the number of studies directly comparing smart orthotics with standard orthotics remains limited, the limited comparative studies suggested that smart orthotics showed promising results in reducing ulcer incidence, providing the patient with real-time feedback to offload via their electronic devices. These findings, while preliminary, highlight the potential of smart orthotic technology as an adjunct to standard orthotic care in reducing the overall burden of diabetic foot disease and knee osteoarthritis.
Limitations: The primary methodological limitation of this review is the open-label design of all included smart orthotic trials, which precludes participant blinding and introduces performance bias. However, this limitation is structural and inherent to the wearable technology field—analogous to surgical trials—and is substantially mitigated by the use of objective primary outcome measures (plantar pressure and ulcer recurrence) across the three included RCTs, the consistency of effect direction across independent RCTs conducted in different countries, and a narrative sensitivity analysis confirming robustness of findings (Risk of Bias Across Studies Section). Formal per-outcome GRADE evidence profiles were not produced; overall certainty of evidence was assessed narratively with reference to GRADE domains and is judged to be low to moderate for smart orthotics in DFU prevention and low for knee OA management, consistent with the Level 2–3 evidence base and open-label study designs. Future adequately powered, multi-site RCTs with standardised outcome reporting, minimum 24-month follow-up, and integrated health economic modelling are the highest priority to extend these preliminary findings.
Registration: This review was not prospectively registered.
Full article
