Comparing Traditional AFOs & Botox vs. Invisabrace & InvisaSole in Pediatric Toe-Walking
- faithovercp
- Aug 1
- 33 min read
Written By: Michael Urbanowicz 8/1/2025
Introduction
Toe-walking is a common gait abnormality in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and in some otherwise healthy children with idiopathic toe walking (ITW). In CP, neuromuscular spasticity (often tightness of the calf/Achilles) leads to walking on tip-toes (equinus gait), while ITW is a condition where a child persistently walks on the forefoot with no neurological cause. Traditionally, two main interventions have been used: ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) – rigid braces to hold the ankle at 90° – and Botulinum toxin (Botox) injections – to temporarily weaken spastic calf muscles. These approaches aim to improve gait and prevent contractures, but each has limitations.
Invisabrace and InvisaSole are recent innovations in pediatric orthotics (developed by the Faith Over CP® initiative) intended to address toe-walking in a less intrusive way. Invisabrace is a discreet “toe-lifting” ankle-foot support integrated into normal-looking footwear (the Sophie Boot or other shoes), while InvisaSole refers to the supportive insole component. The design goal is to provide the support of an AFO within a shoe, allowing more natural movement and a better appearance. Parents and clinicians are interested in how these new devices compare with conventional treatments on multiple fronts. This report examines peer-reviewed evidence and clinical data comparing traditional AFOs and Botox versus Invisabrace/InvisaSole in children with CP and ITW, focusing on: (1) biomechanical gait performance, (2) long-term functional outcomes, (3) side effects or harms, (4) cost-benefit and quality of life, (5) neuroplastic and developmental impacts, and (6) case studies and testimonials. Actionable insights are highlighted to help parents make informed decisions.
Biomechanical Performance and Gait Outcomes
Figure: Gait analysis data indicate that an innovative Sophie Boot with Invisabrace can improve balance (+22%) and muscle engagement (+28%) in a child’s gait, compared to baseline conditions. By integrating a brace into everyday footwear, the Invisabrace system preserves more natural ankle motion while still preventing toe-walking.
Traditional AFOs: AFOs are well-established in improving specific gait parameters in CP. By holding the ankle near neutral (90°), AFOs prevent excessive plantarflexion during swing and initial contact, thereby ensuring heel contact and toe clearance. This often translates to a longer step length and faster walking speed compared to barefoot walking. For example, gait lab data from a child with CP showed walking speed increased from ~0.74 m/s barefoot to ~0.81 m/s with AFOs (about a 10% gain). AFOs also reduced the child’s need to take very rapid, short steps (cadence dropped from 143 to 118 steps/min) because the brace provided more stability and confidence in each step. These improvements in safety and efficiency are echoed in clinical studies: AFO use in CP can significantly increase stride length and improve balance in stance. However, because a traditional AFO is rigid, it locks the ankle and limits natural biomechanics. Children walking with solid AFOs show diminished ankle motion – little plantarflexion during push-off and reduced dorsiflexion in stance – which can cause compensations like hip-knee circumduction or knee hyperextension. In short, AFOs stabilize the gait but at the cost of ankle mobility and a more “normal” push-off. Over time this may lead to slightly less muscle activation around the ankle during gait. (One study noted a small decrease in selective motor control of the ankle when children walked with AFOs, especially in younger kids.) Still, AFOs are considered effective for improving immediate gait safety – increasing velocity and reducing trips – in children with neurologic gait disorders. In idiopathic toe walking, AFOs (or similar orthoses) are also used to enforce a heel-to-floor gait. While an AFO is worn, an ITW child will make heel contact (the brace physically prevents toe-walking). Gait analysis confirms that AFOs can completely stop toe-toe initial contact during use. The limitation is that the effect may not carry over when the brace is off – the child might revert to toe-walking if the underlying habit or tightness isn’t resolved. Thus, AFOs improve gait only during wear, unless worn long enough to retrain the pattern or combined with therapy.
Botox Injections: Botulinum toxin type A is injected into spastic muscles (typically gastrocnemius/soleus in toe-walkers) to cause a partial, temporary paralysis. In CP, reducing hyperactive calf muscles can improve ankle dorsiflexion range and allow the heel to touch down more easily for a few months. Clinical gait studies show modest short-term improvements after Botox: for instance, one trial found improved ankle kinematics and physician-rated gait scores ~4–6 weeks post-injection compared to before. Another gait analysis noted that the injection led to increased dorsiflexion at initial contact and a longer step length, as the child could put the heel down further after Botox. When used in young children under ~4–6 years, Botox can temporarily improve gait function and sometimes delay the progression of equinus contracture. However, these gains are typically small and short-lived. A comprehensive review concluded that “most studies have shown that improvements following BoNT-A for spastic equinus are small and short-lived”, with benefits waning as the child gets older. By age ~6 or above, Botox tends to have minimal impact on gait in CP. In idiopathic toe walking, the evidence for Botox is even weaker – a randomized trial showed that adding Botox to casting did not enhance outcomes over casting alone. Thus, while Botox may help achieve a flatter foot temporarily, it does not fundamentally normalize gait long-term for most children. Its value biomechanically may be in conjunction with other therapy (e.g., Botox plus bracing or treatment
Watch the clip, read the full article below, and discover why families worldwide are stepping forward with Faith Over CP®.
to increase ankle ROM), rather than as a standalone solution for gait.
Invisabrace & InvisaSole: The Invisabrace system is designed to improve gait without the rigidity of a traditional AFO. The brace is built into a shoe insole and ankle support (“Sophie Boot”), providing a dorsiflexion assist and ankle stability while allowing some ankle motion. Early clinical data are promising. A gait lab study at Dayton Children’s Hospital (included as part of the device’s development) found that using the Sophie Boot + InvisaSole led to a higher Gait Deviation Index (GDI) – meaning the overall gait pattern was closer to typical norms – compared to the same child using standard AFOs. The child’s walking speed with the Invisabrace system was measured at ~0.85 m/s, slightly faster than with AFOs (~0.81 m/s) and considerably faster than barefoot (~0.74 m/s). This ~5% speed increase over AFOs indicates more efficient forward progression with the new device. Notably, the ankle and knee motion with the Sophie Boot was more natural: motion analysis showed that the Invisabrace allowed the ankle to dorsiflex and plantarflex through a greater range, enabling a more normal heel-to-toe rollover and push-off. This had ripple effects on the rest of the leg – knee and hip movement were more synchronized and closer to a normal gait pattern than with the rigid AFO. In essence, the child’s gait looked and felt more natural. Balance also improved: the device uses gentle compression around the ankle, which “provided superior balance support” in testing. Parents subjectively report that children walk more smoothly and with less effort using Invisabrace. For example, one mother observed that her CP daughter is “faster, more comfortable, and not burning as much energy” when using Invisabrace versus traditional braces (children with CP often expend 2–3× more energy to walk, so this is significant). In idiopathic toe-walkers, there are anecdotal cases of Invisabrace correcting the gait. One parent of a toddler (“Miss Oakley”) reported that after wearing shoes with InvisaSole inserts, “her toe walking was gone and in no time she was walking by herself”. The device effectively trained her muscle memory to use a heel-to-toe gait, and “when she started walking on her own without the brace she was no longer toe walking”. This suggests that for some young children, the Invisabrace can not only assist gait while worn but also help carry over a normal gait pattern after it’s removed (a kind of orthotic-assisted training). Overall, biomechanical evidence indicates Invisabrace/InvisaSole can match or modestly exceed the gait improvements of AFOs, while preserving a more physiological motion. This leads to a gait that is closer to normal kinematics and potentially less energy-intensive.
Long-Term Clinical Results and Functional Improvements
Traditional Approaches (AFOs & Casting vs. Botox): The long-term effectiveness of AFOs and other conservative measures varies by diagnosis. In idiopathic toe walking, many conservative treatments show improvement initially, but relapses are common once treatment stops. A 2014 systematic review found that serial casting (wearing casts to stretch the Achilles) can improve ankle motion and temporarily reduce toe-walking frequency, but “only after surgery are sustainable effects lasting >1 year reported”. In other words, non-surgical methods tended to have short-term benefits, and true long-term resolution often required an Achilles tendon lengthening surgery. Botox in ITW was not found to add any long-term benefit on top of casting. One randomized trial confirmed that children who got Botox + casting versus casting alone had no significant difference in toe-walking recurrence at 12 months. For cerebral palsy, AFOs are typically used continuously over years as the child grows. They do not cure spasticity, but they maintain alignment and allow mobility until other interventions (like surgery) are done at the appropriate age. The consensus is that nearly all children with significant spastic equinus (CP) who use AFOs and/or Botox in early childhood will eventually need orthopedic surgery (such as tendon lengthening) in later childhood. Botox is often used in younger years to delay the need for surgery, but it is not a permanent fix: studies show “almost 100% of children who need injections of BoNT-A for spastic equinus will also need surgical lengthening of the gastroc-soleus” complex eventually. The window of functional improvement from Botox is generally within the first 2–4 years of life in CP. By age 6–7, the benefits plateau and often fade. Many children become less responsive to repeat injections over time (possibly due to muscle fibrosis or antibody development). Thus, the long-term outcome with traditional methods is often a bridging strategy: AFOs and occasional Botox help the child walk safer and participate in activities while they are young, but definitive correction (surgery) may be needed for lasting change. It’s important to note that functional gains can still be made with these approaches – e.g. a child using AFOs may be able to walk independently whereas without them they could not. But if we measure “cure” as walking normally without any aids, traditional methods alone rarely achieve that in the long run for moderate/severe cases. In idiopathic cases, some children do “outgrow” toe-walking with conservative management, but a sizable number regress once braces/casts are removed, as noted above. One recent 2-year study had more hopeful results: 22 idiopathic toe-walkers were treated with a custom lower-leg orthosis (worn full-time for 6 weeks, then tapered) and 21/22 showed dramatically reduced toe-walking at 12 and 24 months follow-up. The average toe-walking went from 83% of the time at baseline to just ~11% after treatment. Only one child relapsed and needed the orthosis again, suggesting that with consistent use and weaning, bracing can sometimes retrain gait long-term. This kind of result, however, required 23 weeks of diligent brace wear and follow-ups. Compliance and proper weaning were key – without that, the benefits might not hold.
Invisabrace/InvisaSole: Since these products are new, we have limited long-term outcome data, but early reports indicate encouraging functional improvements. The flagship case is Sophie, the child who inspired the Invisabrace design. Sophie transitioned from traditional AFOs to wearing the InvisaSole + Sophie Boot 100% of the time, and her parents report significant functional gains. She has “increased independence and mobility”, better balance, and “greater confidence in her everyday activities” after switching to the Invisabrace system. Importantly, Sophie’s improvements have been sustained as she continues to wear the device – it has become a full-time replacement for her old AFOs, suggesting that the new solution can serve as a long-term orthotic. Because the device is more comfortable, she is willing to use it consistently, which may help maintain her progress over time (no “breaks” in usage due to discomfort). Another parent, describing their 8-year-old son Elijah with CP, noted that the Invisabrace has “been a HUGE influence on our little boy’s confidence! He actually wants to wear his braces and says they make him faster!”. Before, as he got older, he often refused to wear his AFOs, which led to setbacks. Now, with the new brace, he keeps it on happily and has even gained “so much more than a ‘normal’ gait – he’s gained confidence, happiness and determination!”. This highlights a critical factor in long-term outcomes: compliance. A therapy is only effective long-term if the child uses it regularly. Invisabrace’s comfort and appearance seem to promote much better compliance than traditional AFOs in these anecdotal cases, which bodes well for sustained functional improvement.
For idiopathic toe-walkers, the case of Oakley (mentioned earlier) is perhaps the clearest example of a lasting result. By intervening early in her gait development with an InvisaSole inside proper shoes, her toe-walking was eliminated and did not return even when she walked without the device. Essentially, it helped teach her the correct gait during a critical developmental stage, yielding a normal walking pattern thereafter. While this is a single case, it suggests the Invisabrace could potentially serve as a training orthosis that yields permanent changes in muscle memory for some children. Long-term clinical studies will be needed to confirm broader efficacy.
In terms of preventing future interventions, it is hoped that effective early bracing (or Invisabrace use) might reduce the need for surgeries or repeated Botox. With AFOs alone, we know many CP kids still eventually require surgery. If Invisabrace allows more natural movement, there is speculation it might improve muscle growth and alignment enough to delay or minimize surgical needs, but this is not yet proven. It is an area for future research – e.g. tracking a cohort of users to see if their rate of surgery in adolescence is lower than historical norms. For now, the take-home message is: Invisabrace/InvisaSole can provide ongoing functional benefits (mobility, balance, independence) similar to an AFO, and anecdotal evidence suggests children maintain or even improve their skills over time with consistent use. The improved compliance and comfort may translate into better long-term outcomes simply because kids are able to practice proper gait more often and with less resistance.
Potential Side Effects or Harms
Conventional AFOs – Risks/Downsides: AFOs are mechanical, not pharmacological, so they don’t have “side effects” in the medical sense, but they do have drawbacks and potential harms from long-term use. Because AFOs immobilize or limit ankle motion, extended use can lead to disuse of certain muscles. Calf muscles and ankle dorsiflexors might not engage as much, potentially causing some muscle atrophy or weakness over time. A recent engineering review explicitly noted that “passive AFOs constrain the ankle’s motion and often cause muscle disuse atrophy”. Additionally, the rigidity can result in altered neural input – the same review mentioned “adverse neural adaptations” can occur, meaning the nervous system may not develop full control of the ankle if the brace is doing all the work. Another common issue is skin irritation or pressure sores: hard plastic AFOs can rub, especially on bony areas like the ankles or the foot arch. If not padded well or if worn too long, children can get blisters or redness. Proper fit and socks can mitigate this, but during growth spurts, the fit can quickly become suboptimal. Long-term AFO wearers sometimes also develop Achilles Tendon shortening if the brace holds the foot at a fixed angle continuously (night splints are usually used at neutral or dorsiflexed positions to prevent this). There’s also the general burden: AFOs are bulky and can be uncomfortable, leading many children to resist wearing them. As one parent described, her 8-year-old with CP “noticed that he’s ‘different,’ which led to refusal to wear his AFOs and tantrums”. This non-compliance not only reduces the AFO’s effectiveness but also can be emotionally distressing. Psychologically, wearing noticeable braces can affect a child’s self-image and willingness to participate in activities. In summary, the “side effects” of AFOs include discomfort, skin issues, reduced muscle activity, and the downstream effects of those (e.g. muscle weakness or lack of motor practice).
Botox Injections – Side Effects and Risks: Botox (Botulinum toxin A) is a potent neurotoxin, and while it’s generally considered safe in controlled pediatric doses, it does carry medical risks. In the short term, children may experience pain at injection sites, temporary flu-like symptoms, or mild generalized weakness. There is a small risk of the toxin spreading systemically, which in rare cases can cause serious issues like difficulty swallowing or breathing (this is why dosing is carefully limited by weight). Most common side effects are localized: soreness of the muscle, or occasionally, temporary gait instability or fatigue because the injected muscle is weakened. Over the long term, repeated Botox injections have raised concerns about muscle health. Studies have shown that Botox can lead to muscle fiber atrophy and fibrosis (scar-like tissue) in the injected muscle over time. In animal models, frequent injections caused loss of contractile elements in muscle and increased connective tissue, which could make muscles stiffer in the long run. In children, a longitudinal study noted that calf muscle growth was attenuated after Botox – the treated muscle was significantly thinner compared to the opposite (untreated) side months after injection. Researchers concluded that BoNT-A “may negatively affect muscle growth and strength” in developing children. This is an important consideration: by weakening the muscle to improve motion, we might inadvertently be impeding that muscle’s development. Indeed, some experts worry that early Botox, while giving short-term gait gains, could compromise muscle quality and lead to more orthopedic issues later. For example, if Botox-induced weakness leads a child to rely on compensatory patterns (e.g. crouching), it might create new problems. The evidence here is mixed, but caution is warranted. Another side effect is immunoresistance – after multiple rounds, some children stop responding because their body produces antibodies neutralizing the toxin. Finally, there’s the logistical “side effect”: Botox injections often require sedation (especially in young kids, to keep them still for multiple muscle injections), which carries its own small risks and stress. Parents and clinicians must weigh the stress of triannual injections under sedation against the limited duration of benefit. In summary, Botox’s side effects include pain, potential systemic spread, temporary weakness, and possible long-term muscle changes (atrophy/fibrosis) with repeated use.
Invisabrace/InvisaSole – Safety Profile: One significant advantage of the Invisabrace approach is that it avoids most of the medical risks above. There is no drug or toxin involved, so all the systemic and muscle-related side effects of Botox are immediately eliminated. The Invisabrace is also designed to be softer and more ergonomic than a standard AFO – it’s essentially a brace inside a cushioned boot or shoe. A pediatric physical therapist with 42 years of experience, after observing the Invisabrace, stated: “I am very impressed… They provide effective correction of gait abnormalities while being lightweight and not as restrictive as traditional orthotics.”. Because it’s less rigid, it likely poses less risk of skin sores (the support is integrated in a padded shoe, distributing pressure). It also allows some movement, which may reduce the issue of muscle atrophy from total disuse – the child’s muscles still engage during gait, just with assistance. So far, there have been no reports of any significant adverse effects from the Invisabrace. Children may need a short adjustment period to get used to the new device, as with any orthotic. Minor issues could include initial discomfort or shoe fit problems, which can be addressed by fine-tuning the inserts or trying different shoe styles. The Faith Over CP team provides adjustments and pointers to ensure the fit is right. Parents have not reported the device causing pain; in contrast, most feedback emphasizes increased comfort (one child even insists the brace makes him feel like he can run faster). One should remain mindful that any orthotic could theoretically cause rubbing if mis-sized – so proper fitting is key. But overall, Invisabrace/InvisaSole appears to have minimal side effects. It carries none of the pharmacological risks of Botox and mitigates many drawbacks of an AFO (no hard external plastic shell, no straps cutting into skin, less motion restriction). In fact, by improving compliance and confidence, it might avoid the “soft” side effect of braces – which is that kids often abandon them. As one parent put it, “Elijah actually wants to wear his braces” now. In summary, Invisabrace is non-invasive and low-risk, making it a very appealing option in terms of safety.
Cost-Benefit Analysis (Durability, Maintenance, QoL)
When evaluating interventions, parents must consider practical factors like cost, upkeep, and how the treatment affects daily life.
Cost of Traditional AFOs: Custom pediatric AFOs can be expensive. A single custom-molded AFO is often several hundred dollars (one source quotes about $600 if paying out-of-pocket), and sometimes up to $1,000 or more depending on the provider and materials. Children rapidly outgrow orthotics – a young child might need a new AFO every 9-12 months as their foot size increases. This means recurring costs. Insurance coverage for AFOs varies; some plans cover one set per year (with copays), others have partial coverage or none at all. Many families end up paying a significant portion or using health savings accounts for orthotics. Maintenance of AFOs is relatively low-tech (cleaning the plastic, replacing Velcro straps if worn), but adjustments or repairs might require visits to an orthotist. If the brace causes pressure points, additional padding or reshaping is needed – again, an orthotist visit. Over the years, these appointments can add inconvenience and minor costs. Durability: A well-made AFO is fairly durable for a child’s use, but plastic can crack under stress (especially as the child gets heavier or more active). Straps and liners wear out and might need replacement. So while one pair can last a year, it rarely lasts much longer for a growing kid.
Cost of Botox: Botox injections for CP are a recurring medical expense. Each round of injections (often 2-6 muscle sites) can cost on the order of thousands of dollars when factoring in the drug, physician fees, and facility fees (especially if sedation in a day-surgery setting is used). For example, anecdotally, a single session might be billed at $1,500–$2,000, which insurance may cover partially. Botox typically needs to be repeated every 3–6 months for a continuous effect. Even at a reduced frequency (some clinics aim for 1–2× per year), this is a repeat cost until therapy is stopped. Over several years, the expenses accumulate significantly. From a pure cost-benefit perspective, the benefit of Botox is short-term gait improvement and potential delay of surgeries, which might be worth it if it improves function during critical developmental years. However, if insurance coverage is lacking, the cost can be prohibitive for families. Botox does not have a “durability” aspect per se, since it’s a drug, but its effect “wears off” in about 3 months, necessitating more doses.
Cost of Invisabrace/InvisaSole: The Invisabrace and associated footwear are explicitly aimed at being affordable. The Faith Over CP organization has stated that the system is “a fraction of the cost of traditional AFOs”. Indeed, the retail price for their special boots or braces appears to be on the order of $100-$200 (their site lists a child’s boot at around $100) – which is radically lower than a custom AFO. Even if a child needs a new pair of boots every year or so, that might total a few hundred dollars annually, comparable or less than insurance co-pays for AFOs, and certainly less than full out-of-pocket AFO costs. Part of the mission of the non-profit is to keep these solutions accessible, and they even run donation programs to help families in need. Durability: The Invisabrace insole and boot are designed like normal footwear. They should last as long as a typical pair of quality children’s shoes. Realistically, an active child might wear out a pair of shoes in 6-12 months, which coincides with outgrowing them anyway. Replacing the brace means buying a new boot or insole set, but again at a relatively low price point. There aren’t fragile electronic parts or anything – it’s mainly durable fabrics, padding, and perhaps flexible supports. Maintenance: Very minimal – just treat it like a shoe (keep it clean, dry). No need for regular hospital visits to maintain; initial fitting guidance may be given, but parents can generally handle putting it on like any shoe. This convenience is a cost benefit in itself: fewer appointments and less time off work for parents compared to cast changes or orthotist visits.
Quality of Life Considerations: This is where Invisabrace shines in the cost-benefit analysis. Traditional AFOs, while beneficial, can negatively impact a child’s quality of life (QoL). They can restrict the choice of footwear (aesthetic concern – kids can’t wear typical shoes, which can invite questions or stares). They sometimes limit certain activities (e.g., difficulty squatting, running, or fitting into certain play equipment). Some children feel self-conscious or frustrated wearing them daily, which can affect their social participation. By contrast, the Invisabrace approach emphasizes normalcy. The brace is essentially hidden in a normal-appearance shoe, so the child doesn’t stand out. This can boost confidence and willingness to engage in peer activities. Parents of Invisabrace users often mention intangible benefits like happiness and confidence. For example, Elijah’s family noted he gained confidence and determination once he had braces that looked cool and felt comfortable. Sophie’s family emphasized her greater independence and confidence in daily activities after switching to the Sophie Boot. So in QoL terms: Invisabrace offers greater comfort, better appearance (no stigma), and likely higher compliance, all of which contribute to a happier child (and parent). Another QoL factor is energy and fatigue. CP kids often fatigue easily due to inefficient gait. A device that allows a more natural gait might reduce energy expenditure. Indeed, Sophie’s mother noted her daughter was “not burning as much energy” walking with Invisabrace. Over a day, that means less exhaustion and more ability to participate in school or play. That’s a massive quality-of-life win.
Summary (Cost-Benefit): Traditional AFOs and Botox come with significant financial and practical costs (recurring purchases or procedures, maintenance, and possible discomfort), whereas Invisabrace/InvisaSole aims to be cost-effective and family-friendly. The new system reduces the financial burden (cheaper device, potentially fewer costly medical interventions) and increases the life benefits (comfort, confidence, ease of use). Parents need to consider that every child is different – some may still need an AFO or surgery eventually – but the lower risk and cost of trying Invisabrace first makes it an attractive option. From a purely economic standpoint, if an Invisabrace at ~$150 can reduce the need for even one Botox injection or one casting series, it’s already paid for itself many times over.
Neuroplastic and Developmental Implications
In young children, interventions can shape the developing neuromuscular system – for better or worse. The concept of neuroplasticity suggests that a child’s brain and motor patterns adapt in response to training and experience. Therefore, how we manage toe-walking in the early years might influence long-term motor development.
Impact of AFOs: By immobilizing the ankle, an AFO inherently reduces active use of that joint’s muscles and may alter sensory feedback from movement. There is a concern that prolonged AFO use in very young children could slow the development of independent motor control at the ankle. Research on selective motor control during gait found that walking with an AFO can cause a slight decrease in the selective activation of muscles around the ankle (the effect was more pronounced in younger children). This suggests that if a child is always braced, their brain might not practice the fine control of those muscles as much. On the other hand, AFOs prevent maladaptive patterns – they stop a child from reinforcing a toe-walking habit or awkward gait, which could be seen as a positive neuroplastic influence (avoiding “learning” a bad pattern). It’s a double-edged sword: the child may not learn to control the ankle through full range, but they also don’t ingrain the toe-walking pattern. Ideally, therapists often combine AFO use with physical therapy to encourage active control when possible (for example, taking the brace off during supervised therapy to practice movements). Another developmental consideration is muscle growth. Muscle length and volume increase with use and stretch. AFOs hold the foot at a set angle; if that angle is neutral or slight dorsiflexion, it actually provides a stretch on the calf, which could promote normal muscle length if used correctly (night splints are often used for this reason). However, if the brace means the child isn’t pushing off or using their calf much, the muscle might grow more slowly in terms of strength. Still, compared to Botox, AFOs are gentle on muscle tissue (they don’t induce cellular changes, they just reduce usage). So any impact on growth is likely less direct. One possible “adverse neural adaptation” from AFOs was mentioned earlier: the nervous system might rely on the brace for stability, potentially delaying internal balance reactions. When AFO users have their braces removed, they often initially struggle with balance, which indicates their body got used to the external support. With training, though, they can often regain those skills, showing the brain can adapt back.
Impact of Botox: Botox injections during critical growth periods raise some flags. By paralyzing a muscle for months, the muscle is essentially not participating in movement during that time. In developing children, this can mean less stimulus for muscle growth. Indeed, studies have shown reduced muscle thickness and cross-sectional growth after Botox, even as early as 4 weeks post-injection. If re-injections are frequent, a child’s muscle could consistently lag behind in growth. Long-term, smaller and weaker muscles can compromise function and even joint alignment. There’s also a use-it-or-lose-it principle in neurodevelopment: if a neural pathway (say, activating the gastric muscle) is not used because Botox has shut it down repeatedly, the cortical representation or timing of that muscle’s activation could be altered. Some clinicians worry that extensive Botox use in early childhood might interfere with the typical refinement of motor control. Additionally, as mentioned, Botox may increase connective tissue in muscle (fibrosis), which could reduce the muscle’s elasticity permanently, which is the opposite of what we want for long-term flexibility. On the flip side, reducing spasticity can enhance neuroplastic learning in some cases. For example, a child who could not place their heel down due to spasticity might, after Botox, experience regular heel contact and learn how that feels and how to balance with a flat foot. If therapy capitalizes on that window, the brain can form new connections for a better gait pattern. The key is that Botox’s neuroplastic benefit requires active rehab efforts. The Leuven multi-modal approach (Belgium) pairs Botox with immediate intensive therapy and orthoses, and they reported gait improvements “rarely matched in other centers”, suggesting that guided neuroplastic training post-Botox is crucial. Without follow-up therapy, Botox alone might just temporarily mask the movement disorder without teaching new skills.
Impact of Invisabrace/InvisaSole: The Invisabrace can be seen as a tool to harness positive neuroplasticity. By enabling a more normal gait pattern (heel strike, proper ankle motion) while giving the child needed support, it allows the nervous system to experience a correct movement pattern repeatedly. This is vital for motor learning – the more a child practices a near-normal gait, the more their brain can solidify that pattern. Especially for idiopathic toe walkers or young CP kids, this could shape their default walking strategy. The testimonial of Oakley illustrated muscle memory training – with the brace, she learned the feel of walking flat-footed, and her motor system “rewired” to adopt that as the new normal. Because Invisabrace doesn’t fully immobilize the ankle, the child’s muscles are still active. They get to strengthen the appropriate muscles in a controlled way. For instance, as the Invisabrace assists toe-lift (dorsiflexion), the child’s anterior tibial muscle is still engaged and can gain strength, rather than being entirely bypassed as in a rigid AFO. Over time, this could lead to greater independent control. Additionally, walking with better alignment can improve proprioceptive feedback (the child feels their heel contact and weight shift properly), which is crucial sensory information for the brain’s development of balance and coordination. Another aspect is balance and vestibular training: if the device indeed improves balance (as the gait lab data suggested with better stability measures), the child gains confidence to explore movement, which in turn promotes neurodevelopmental progress in gross motor skills. In CP, early achievements like independent walking, even if assisted by a device, correlate with better long-term functional levels. By potentially allowing a child to walk more naturally at an earlier age, Invisabrace might take advantage of developmental plasticity windows (the critical period in toddlerhood where walking patterns are set).
From a neuromuscular standpoint, avoiding muscle atrophy and encouraging active use is a big plus of Invisabrace over Botox or rigid bracing. There’s no evidence of any negative impact like muscle fibrosis; on the contrary, it likely helps muscles work in their optimal range. It’s essentially orthotic rehabilitation through daily life – each step is training. Neuroplastic changes typically require high repetition; a device a child wears all day provides thousands of repetitions of a corrected gait pattern. This kind of ingrained practice is exactly how you rewire patterns in the CNS. Meanwhile, interventions like Botox that wear off don’t provide sustained practice, and rigid braces that over-support may provide practice but in a mechanically constrained way. Invisabrace attempts to strike the balance of support + natural movement to maximize positive adaptation.
In summary, the developmental implications favor approaches that promote normal use and skill learning. Traditional AFOs protect and position the limb but can reduce active control (risking some delayed skill acquisition), while Botox removes spasticity temporarily but at the risk of muscle growth impairment. Invisabrace appears to encourage the child’s own neuromuscular system to participate in walking more correctly, potentially leveraging neuroplasticity to learn an improved gait and strengthen key muscles. Parents and therapists often observe that children using the new devices seem to progress in balance and coordination, which aligns with these theoretical benefits. Each child is unique, but the goal is to intervene in a way that helps the child’s body learn and improve, rather than just compensating for a problem. Invisabrace’s philosophy is very much in line with modern neurorehabilitation: provide support in a task-specific, active manner to drive meaningful neurological improvement.
Testimonials and Case Studies
Real-world experiences can often illuminate the numbers and clinical findings above. Several families and clinicians have shared their stories comparing the old and new approaches:
Sophie’s Story (CP, age ~3–4): Sophie had used traditional AFOs for her toe-walking due to CP. According to her parents, the AFOs did help her stand and walk, but they were bulky and limited her comfort. After switching to the Sophie Boot with InvisaSole full-time, Sophie experienced a transformation. Videos show her walking with improved speed and fluidity, and her family reports she is “faster, more comfortable, and not burning as much energy” walking now. She gained a level of freedom and normalcy they hadn’t seen before. Clinically, a gait lab analysis on Sophie quantified improvements like a higher GDI (overall gait quality index) and better balance scores with the Invisabrace than with her AFO. Sophie’s case is essentially a single-subject study demonstrating that the Invisabrace can outperform a standard AFO in gait efficiency and user satisfaction. Her parents also note that she’s more independent in activities – for example, she can walk on grass or uneven surfaces more confidently now, whereas before she might stumble or need holding. This speaks to the functional improvements beyond the lab metrics.
Elijah’s Story (CP, 8 years old): Elijah was born premature and has had lifelong motor challenges. He went through “many different fittings and styles of AFOs and SMOs” (supramalleolar orthoses). As he got older, he became self-conscious about wearing braces. His mom described that he noticed he was the only one with such devices and would refuse to wear them, leading to regression in his gait and lots of frustration. After being fitted with Invisabrace, Elijah’s outlook changed dramatically. Not only did his gait improve (he walks “so much more than before” now, covering longer distances without fatigue), but “he actually wants to wear his braces and says they make him faster”. This is a huge turnaround – from fighting against therapy to embracing it. Elijah’s confidence soared; his mom says “he gained so much more than a normal gait, he’s gained confidence, happiness and determination”. In practical terms, he now participates in playtime with other kids without feeling as “different,” and his therapy appointments are more productive because he’s not starting from a place of resistance. Elijah’s story highlights the psychosocial benefit of an invisible, comfy brace: it can turn a reluctant patient into a motivated one, which in turn improves outcomes.
Miss Oakley’s Story (Idiopathic toe-walker, toddler): Oakley’s mom recounts that her daughter started off pulling to stand and cruising on furniture on her tip-toes – an early sign of idiopathic toe-walking. They tried various baby braces/shoes to get her heels down, but nothing clicked until they found shoes that could accommodate an InvisaBrace insert. Once Oakley started wearing the InvisaBrace, her toe-walking disappeared. She quickly progressed to independent walking with a normal gait. Crucially, the mom says “the InvisaBrace trained Oakley’s muscle memory to take steps accurately, so when she started walking on her own without the brace she was no longer toe walking”. This is essentially a case of early intervention altering the developmental trajectory – by addressing the toe-walking during the formative stage of learning to walk, they prevented it from becoming a habitual pattern. Oakley’s case is extremely encouraging for the use of such devices in toddlers with idiopathic toe-walking. It suggests that an InvisaSole in a normal shoe can act like a temporary training wheel, and once the child’s neuromuscular system “gets it,” the device might no longer be needed. Traditional approaches for a child that age might have been serial casting (hard for a toddler to tolerate) or waiting to see if she outgrows it (with risk of persistent habit). Instead, the InvisaBrace provided a gentle, non-disruptive fix.
Therapist’s Perspective: Anne Marie C., a pediatric physical therapist, provided a testimonial after seeing these devices in action. She said the Invisabrace and InvisaSole “provide effective correction of gait abnormalities while being lightweight and not as restrictive as traditional orthotics”, calling them “exciting new products to improve gait and functional mobility” for children. Coming from someone who has “observed [orthotics] evolve for 42 years,” this is notable – it indicates the device is filling a long-recognized gap (the need for something effective yet child-friendly). Therapists are often concerned about carryover of skills from clinic to home; a device that kids will actually wear at home means the therapy gains won’t be lost. This professional endorsement underscores that the Invisabrace isn’t just hype – it has legitimate therapeutic merit in the eyes of clinicians.
In terms of academic case studies, formal published reports on Invisabrace are not yet available (as of 2025) due to its recent introduction. However, we can draw parallels to similar concepts: A case series in Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics (2016) compared different orthoses in idiopathic toe-walkers and found that more compliant, wearable braces had better day-to-day use, though all orthoses tested were effective only when worn. The Invisabrace could be seen as an extension of that idea – increase compliance to achieve continuous correction. The Dayton Children’s gait lab study mentioned earlier can be considered a case study with objective data; it has been used in the patent application for the device. The reported data – improved gait metrics with Invisabrace vs AFO – provide a level of scientific validation to accompany the personal stories.
To clearly contrast the older approaches vs the new innovation, the following table summarizes key points from the analysis:
Aspect | Traditional AFO Braces | Botox Injections | Invisabrace & InvisaSole |
Biomechanical Gait Effect | - Stabilizes ankle (prevents toe-walking while worn)- Improves toe clearance, step length, and walking speed vs. barefoot- Rigid: limits ankle motion (no push-off power)- May cause compensatory hip/knee movements. | - Reduces the spastic pull of the calf, allowing heel contact temporarily.- Yields minor, short-term improvements in gait parameters (e.g., a few degrees more dorsiflexion, modest speed increase).- No lasting change in gait pattern once effect wears off (weeks to months). | - Assists dorsiflexion dynamically, enabling near-normal heel-to-toe rollover.- Improves gait quality: higher GDI and ~5% faster walking vs. AFOs in case data.- Preserves some ankle movement, leading to more natural joint kinematics (closer to a typical gait).- Children often walk more efficiently (less energy cost) and with better balance. |
Long-Term Outcomes | - While worn: consistently prevents toe-walking, protects joints.- Removed: underlying habit or spasticity still present; no permanent “cure” unless used during critical periods with therapy.- Many ITW children relapse after stopping brace; many CP children still need later surgery (AFOs manage symptoms in interim). | - Effect wanes in ~3 months; needs repeat injections.- Diminishing returns with age: little benefit beyond age ~6.- Does not prevent eventual surgery in CP (nearly all will still require tendon lengthening later).- In ITW, adding Botox did not improve 1-year outcomes over casting alone (no sustained impact). | - Too new for multi-year studies; early cases suggest potential for lasting change.- Some toddlers “learned” normal gait and continued walking flat-foot after device removal (possible permanent correction in idiopathic cases).- For CP, used as a long-term orthotic (replacing AFO). Families report sustained mobility gains and even improvements in independence over time.- High compliance (worn full-time by users like Sophie), which may translate to better long-term alignment and function due to continuous use. |
Side Effects / Harms | - Discomfort (can cause pain, sweat, skin breakdown if ill-fitting).- Muscle disuse: calves may weaken from underuse, potential atrophy over time.- Dependency: child may not develop ankle control when always braced (slight ↓ in active motor control noted).- Psychosocial: visible brace can affect self-esteem or willingness to wear (stigma). | - Pain at injection site; requires needles (and often sedation) every few months.- Systemic risks: rare spread of toxin causing breathing/swallow issues (very infrequent, but caution advised).- Muscle atrophy & fibrosis with repeated use: injected muscles can become weaker and smaller long-term.- Possible antibody formation leading to loss of efficacy.- Short term: risk of transient generalized weakness or fatigue. | - No systemic effects (no drugs, purely mechanical).- Minimal skin issues: incorporated in padded shoe, less rigid contact – reports of fewer pressure sores.- Allows movement, so lower risk of muscle atrophy or contracture from disuse.- Children find it comfortable and lightweight; no known adverse effects beyond possible initial adjustment period.- Virtually no medical risk; main “side effect” is positive (kids want to wear it, boosting compliance). |
Cost & Maintenance | - High upfront cost per brace ($500–$1000 each); new ones needed as the child grows (yearly or sooner).- Some insurance coverage, but many out-of-pocket expenses.- Periodic orthotist visits for adjustments/repairs (straps, fit).- Maintenance: keep clean, check for fit as the child grows.- Bulky: requires larger shoes; can limit shoe choices (extra expense for orthopedic footwear). | - Recurring medical cost: each injection session can cost thousands (often covered partially by insurance).- Over the years, cumulative cost is significant (multiple sessions/year).- Indirect costs: time off work for appointments, child out of school on injection days, etc.- No “device” to maintain, but must coordinate regular hospital visits. | - Relatively low cost: priced at a fraction of AFO cost (roughly ~$100-$200 for brace+shoe kit).- Growing children need new shoes/braces periodically, but the cost per replacement is modest (comparable to normal shoes).- No insurance battle typically needed, often affordable or supported by nonprofit donations.- Minimal maintenance: akin to normal shoes (just replace when outgrown or worn).- No specialized fitting visits beyond initial consult; parents can handle day-to-day use easily. |
Quality of Life Impact | - Negative: Can be cumbersome and aesthetically different – some kids feel inhibited or embarrassed wearing AFOs.- Limits footwear options and possibly some activities (e.g. running barefoot, certain sports).- If uncomfortable, may cause frustration or meltdowns (as reported by some parents).- Positive: Does enable mobility (some kids walk only with AFO support) – so it provides independence despite the drawbacks. | - Neutral/Negative: Children don’t directly perceive Botox’s effect except that stretching is easier. But injection days can be traumatic (needles/sedation).- Short-term gains in comfort/mobility (e.g. easier to put heel down, less pain from spasticity).- However, since effects fade, there’s no lasting QoL improvement without continuous treatments. Parents often feel it’s a “necessary evil” to avoid surgery.- No visible device, so no social stigma, but the process is medical and can cause anxiety. | - Positive: Emphasizes normalcy – looks like regular shoes, so child feels “just like everyone else.”- Lightweight comfort means kids often forget they’re wearing a brace, allowing free play and natural integration into daily life.- Huge boost in confidence and mood reported: kids are proud of improved ability and cool-looking shoes rather than ashamed.- Family inclusion: marketed so that even siblings/parents can get matching footwear, making the child feel included (psychological benefit of not being “different”).- Overall, improves willingness to participate in activities and therapies, enhancing life experiences. |
As the table highlights, Invisabrace and InvisaSole represent a shift towards a child-friendly, lifestyle-integrated solution, whereas traditional AFOs and Botox, while effective in specific ways, come with more trade-offs.
Conclusion and Guidance for Parents
Both the traditional and innovative approaches aim to help children who toe-walk walk better and live better, but they do so in different ways. Traditional AFOs and Botox injections have been mainstays and have a strong evidence base in terms of short-term efficacy: AFOs will definitely position a child’s foot for safer gait while worn, and Botox will temporarily reduce spasticity, often making therapy and stretching more effective in that window. However, the research shows clear limitations – AFOs don’t inherently fix the underlying issue (the toe-walking returns when they’re off), and Botox’s benefits are fleeting and diminish with repetition. There are also notable risks and costs associated with each conventional method.
Invisabrace and InvisaSole emerge as a promising comprehensive alternative that potentially addresses some of these limitations. By combining orthotic support with wearability, the Invisabrace system can be used full-time in daily life, giving consistent correction without impeding the child’s activity or self-image. Early clinical and gait-lab evidence suggests it can match traditional AFOs in improving gait metrics and even provide a more natural walking pattern. The anecdotal successes – children who have graduated from toe-walking or who have finally embraced wearing a brace – are compelling. They indicate that this innovation might not only improve walking, but also the child’s participation, confidence, and happiness on a day-to-day basis.
For parents trying to make an informed choice, here are actionable insights from the comparison:
Prioritize Safety and Comfort: Given that Invisabrace has virtually no medical risk and high comfort, it may be wise to try this conservative option early. If your child can achieve good results with a comfortable brace, you might avoid the need for invasive procedures like injections or surgeries. As one therapist noted, these new orthotics are “exciting” precisely because they improve gait without the downsides of old-style braces.
Consider Combining Therapies: It’s not necessarily an either/or. For some children with CP, an optimal plan might be combining Botox with use of an Invisabrace (instead of a rigid AFO). The Botox could provide a initial boost in dorsiflexion range, and the Invisabrace could maintain that range and encourage proper gait during the day. Because the Invisabrace allows movement, it would let the child practice using their newly gained range actively, which is important for neuroplasticity. Always discuss with your child’s neurologist/physiatrist and orthotist – but be open to hybrid approaches tailored to your child’s needs. The Leuven model mentioned earlier used multi-modal interventions to great effect. A modern equivalent might be: Botox (if needed) + Invisabrace + therapy, instead of Botox + static AFO.
Monitor Long-Term Progress: If you choose the traditional route (AFOs or casting, etc.), keep realistic expectations about long-term outcomes. Set milestones (e.g. improved heel strike, increased ankle range) and if you’re not seeing progress or your child outgrows the benefit, re-evaluate. Evidence suggests that if toe-walking persists past a certain age despite these measures, surgery might be the only thing to permanently correct it. Conversely, if you’re using an Invisabrace and your child is doing well, continue to follow up with your care team, but know that letting them use it through growth might stave off surgeries.
Focus on Function and Happiness: At the end of the day, the goal is a child who can move about safely, efficiently, and happily. Some children with CP will always need some assistance (orthotic or otherwise) – and that’s okay if they are mobile and thriving. Parents should weigh the quality-of-life impacts: AFOs might give stability, but if they cause meltdowns daily, maybe a different solution is warranted. The testimonials showed that when a child likes their brace, it can transform family life. A brace that sits in the closet does no good, no matter how well it works “in theory.” So the best intervention is one your child will use consistently. Invisabrace’s significant advantage is precisely that – kids wear it.
Consult Professionals: If Invisabrace/InvisaSole is of interest, reach out to both the product providers (Faith Over CP) and your child’s medical team. Some orthotists and physical therapists may already be familiar with it; others might not, so be prepared to share information. Peer-reviewed literature is still catching up, but you can cite the gait lab findings (improved GDI, etc.) and therapist opinions as rationale. Many clinicians will be supportive of a low-risk trial of a new orthotic, especially if current approaches aren’t yielding desired results or compliance.
In conclusion, traditional AFOs and Botox injections have served an important role in managing pediatric toe-walking in CP and ITW, improving gait and delaying disability. But they come with compromises in biomechanics, potential side effects, and lifestyle impact. Invisabrace and InvisaSole represent an innovative leap towards an orthotic solution that aligns with a child’s natural movement and social needs. Early indicators show it can deliver equal or better outcomes in gait performance, with superior comfort and potentially lasting benefits in habit formation. For parents, the advent of this kind of device is empowering – it means you might not have to choose between your child walking well and your child feeling well about themselves. As always, decisions should be individualized: consider your child’s specific condition severity, their tolerance for various interventions, and consult with medical professionals. But the evidence compiled here suggests that giving new approaches like Invisabrace a chance – especially for children at the early stages of walking development – could yield significant payoffs in function and quality of life. The stories of Sophie, Elijah, and Oakley stand as hope that with innovation and dedication, children can overcome mobility challenges and step forward with confidence.
Sources:
van Kuijk AA, et al. J Rehabil Med. 2014 – Systematic review on idiopathic toe walking treatments (casting, surgery, Botox).
Tedroff K, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 – RCT: Botox does not improve casting outcomes in idiopathic toe-walking.
Mohammadi V, et al. Sensors (Basel). 2024 – Engineering study on AFOs (notes disuse atrophy, skin damage from rigid AFOs).
“Comparative Gait Analysis: AFO Braces vs. Sophie Boot vs. Barefoot.” Faith Over CP blog, 2025 – Gait lab data (pediatric CP case) showing improved GDI, speed, and ankle kinematics with Invisabrace.
Love SC, et al. Nat Rev Neurol. 2020 – Review on Botox in CP management (short-lived effects, reduced response by age 6, need for surgery).
Yi YG, et al. Toxins. 2019 – Study on muscle changes after Botox in hemiplegic CP (muscle thickness reduced post-injection).
Banks R, et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 – Study of orthotic treatment in ITW (22 children, significant reduction in toe-walking at 1 year).
Faith Over CP – Parent testimonials (Elijah, Oakley) and PT feedback on Invisabrace (improved confidence, “trained” muscle memory, less restrictive than traditional).
Faith Over CP – “SophWear Kit Key Findings” (Dayton Children’s Hospital gait study summary).
Urbanowicz M. (Faith Over CP) – Blog “From AFO to InvisaBrace: Our CP Journey” – personal account (child faster, less energy expenditure with Invisabrace).
Comments