Pads & Cushions

Metatarsal Bar

Broad Myolite bar behind the metatarsal heads, in a 1-5 or a 2-4 version. Transfers contact behind the head line while preserving a defined distal platform beneath the top cover.

Metatarsal Bar, view 1
  • 1.5 mm
  • 3 mm
  • 4.5 mm

15 Shore A Myolite

A metatarsal bar gives the forefoot a broad supporting shelf behind the heads. Compared with a central dome, it spreads that support across more of the foot. It is useful when several head-level regions need relief and the patient tolerates a transverse contact platform better than a local rise.

The Myolite bar lies on the upper surface of the distal frame beneath the top cover. It spans the forefoot from the first-metatarsal-base side toward the lateral styloid region and ends at the frame edge, proximal to the heads. Its proximal and side borders blend into the frame; its distal border retains a defined supporting step. The forefoot extension continues beyond it between the top and bottom covers.

The frame carries the bar, and the bar brings the tissue behind the heads into greater contact. This can reduce pressure farther forward while increasing shaft and midfoot loading. Its distal step makes the transition more distinct than that of a rounded dome. The response also depends on the shoe: laboratory work found more forefoot relief in a stiffer shoe with the same type of insole intervention [E12].

Choose a bar for broad metatarsal pressure pain or several symptomatic heads when the proximal tissue can comfortably receive load. It can provide a broad alternative to a dome that feels too focal. The therapeutic goals are more even forefoot contact, less head-level irritation and better tolerance of standing or walking.

A bar too far forward can become a ridge under the painful head line. A large step can be poorly tolerated in a rigid foot or a shallow shoe. Because the bar spans the first-ray side as well as the lesser forefoot, check whether it interferes with useful first-ray motion or increases sesamoid pressure. New arch or shaft pain indicates that the receiving contact needs adjustment.

The standard height choices are 1.5, 3 and 4.5 mm. Position and transverse width determine where the bar acts; height determines how strongly the new platform meets the foot before compression. A low broad bar may be more comfortable than a taller local dome. Increase thickness only when the existing contact pattern is appropriate and the shoe has room.

Broad forefoot cushioning can soften the transition. A punch, slot or balance pad can accommodate a remaining focal lesion. A short Carlton saddle can provide a related distal bar effect with more midfoot contact. Footwear stiffness or a rocker can contribute to forefoot relief through a different part of the system.

A metatarsal dome concentrates proximal support beneath the central shafts. A uniform cushioning layer avoids a pronounced ridge. A focal relief opening targets one pressure-sensitive spot. A reverse Morton or valgus extension changes transverse relative height and first-ray contact rather than supplying the same full-width proximal shelf.

Check the distal edge, all symptomatic heads and the receiving shaft tissues during walking. Include big-toe propulsion and shoe depth. At follow-up, compare walking pain and skin response across the forefoot, not only at the original lesion. A new callus behind the heads is a sign that pressure has moved rather than been adequately distributed.

Forefoot-pad studies have compared domes, bars and plantar coverings and found that several designs can reduce peak pressure [E04]. Individualized bar-location research shows that no single placement rule works best for every high-pressure site [E09]. Cushioning and footwear studies explain why both material and shoe stiffness influence the finished result [E11, E12].

  1. Comparison of the pressure-relieving properties of various types of forefoot pads in older people with forefoot pain.

    Thirty-seven older adults with forefoot pain. All tested forefoot pads lowered whole-forefoot peak pressure. The distal dome and plantar cover produced reductions of 17% and 19%, respectively.

    The reported percentage changes used a broad forefoot mask. They cannot be assigned to a particular metatarsal head or treated as individual patient outcomes.

  2. Plantar pressure analysis of accommodative insole in older people with metatarsalgia.

    Twenty-one older patients with metatarsalgia. A sequentially accommodated insole reduced metatarsal-head peak pressure by 47.2%; reported pain fell from 8.2 to 1.1.

    The sequence involved several accommodations and lacked a randomized comparison. Clinical improvement cannot be attributed to Plastazote or one local component alone.

  3. Evaluation of orthotic insoles for people with diabetes who are at-risk of first ulceration.

    Sixty adults with diabetes and neuropathy tried nine individualized insole designs. Metatarsal-bar position affected pressure relief, and generic design rules left more high-pressure sites than individualized selection.

    The study supports individualized forefoot location and cushioning. Its measured pressure changes explain the design strategy rather than proving every bar configuration is equivalent.

  4. The effect of foot orthoses with forefoot cushioning or metatarsal pad on forefoot peak plantar pressure in running.

    Twenty-three asymptomatic runners. Forefoot cushioning reduced mean peak pressure to 281 kPa versus 313 kPa with control and 315 kPa with the metatarsal pad. The pad did not differ significantly from control.

    This result concerns the tested running insoles in healthy runners. A different pad position, shoe or painful-foot population can respond differently.

  5. [Forefoot relief with shoe inserts : Effects of different construction strategies].

    Fifteen healthy adults. Both metatarsal padding and forefoot cushioning reduced forefoot peak pressure; stiffer shoes provided more relief. Padding increased midfoot pressure versus control.

    The study separates useful shoe-stiffness and contact effects. It does not establish pain outcomes for a particular Root modification.

  6. Prevention of recurrent foot ulcers with plantar pressure-based in-shoe orthoses: the CareFUL prevention multicenter randomized controlled trial.

    Pressure- and shape-based orthoses reduced submetatarsal ulcer recurrence compared with standard orthoses. The control-arm hazard ratio for ulcer occurrence was 3.4; nonulcerative lesions did not differ.

    This is evidence for recurrence prevention with pressure-informed orthoses. Prevention of a new ulcer is a different endpoint from healing an active ulcer.

  7. Foot orthoses for forefoot pressure reduction and the hypothesized role in calf muscle stretching: A systematic review highlighting an evidence gap.

    Twelve studies with 456 participants reported reduced forefoot peak pressure or pressure-time integral with tested orthoses. Metatarsal support and soft contoured designs showed useful pressure effects. No eligible study tested a design specifically intended to stretch the calf.

    The review used a narrative synthesis because designs and populations differed. Its included primary studies retain their original evidence identity and do not independently validate each Root modification.

  • MB-MYO-15A-1p5-1M5M 1.5mm Met Bar Pad 1-5 - 15 Shore A Myolite
  • MB-MYO-15A-3p0-1M5M 3mm Met Bar Pad 1-5 - 15 Shore A Myolite
  • MB-MYO-15A-3p0-2m4m 3mm Met Bar Pad 2-4 - 15 Shore A Myolite
  • MB-MYO-15A-4p5-1M5M 4.5mm Met Bar Pad 1-5 - 15 Shore A Myolite