OBJECTIVE: To determine the energy cost of walking (ECW) of a bionic foot (Proprio-Foot®) during ambulation on floor and on treadmill (at different slopes) compared to walking with a dynamic carbon fiber foot (DCF). We evaluated transtibial amputees (TTAs) perceived mobility with the prosthesis and their walking ability on stairs and ramps. METHOD: TTAs were enrolled. The ECW tests were conducted on a regular floor surface and on treadmill with -5%, 0% and 12% slopes. In all conditions, TTAs were asked to walk at their own self-selected speed. Metabolic and cardiac data were collected using a portable gas analyzer. Tests were performed at six data collection points: first with a standard suction system (SSS) and the DCF; second, with the DCF after 7 weeks of using a hypobaric suspension system (HSS) with the DCF; third, after 1 h of Proprio-Foot® use together with the HSS; three more testing sessions were carried out at 30-day intervals, i.e., after 30, 60 and 90 days of Proprio-Foot® use together with the HSS. TTAs perceived mobility using the prosthesis and walking ability on stairs and ramps were assessed. RESULTS: Ten TTAs completed the measurements. ECW with the Proprio-Foot® obtained in the final floor-walking test was significantly lower than ECW with the DCF (p=0.002). No significant improvements were observed for perceived mobility or walking ability. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that use of the Proprio-Foot® can lower the ECW for TTAs in spite of its added weight compared to DCF.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the energy cost of walking (ECW) of a bionic foot (Proprio-Foot®) during ambulation on floor and on treadmill (at different slopes) compared to walking with a dynamic carbon fiber foot (DCF). We evaluated transtibial amputees (TTAs) perceived mobility with the prosthesis and their walking ability on stairs and ramps. METHOD: TTAs were enrolled. The ECW tests were conducted on a regular floor surface and on treadmill with -5%, 0% and 12% slopes. In all conditions, TTAs were asked to walk at their own self-selected speed. Metabolic and cardiac data were collected using a portable gas analyzer. Tests were performed at six data collection points: first with a standard suction system (SSS) and the DCF; second, with the DCF after 7 weeks of using a hypobaric suspension system (HSS) with the DCF; third, after 1 h of Proprio-Foot® use together with the HSS; three more testing sessions were carried out at 30-day intervals, i.e., after 30, 60 and 90 days of Proprio-Foot® use together with the HSS. TTAs perceived mobility using the prosthesis and walking ability on stairs and ramps were assessed. RESULTS: Ten TTAs completed the measurements. ECW with the Proprio-Foot® obtained in the final floor-walking test was significantly lower than ECW with the DCF (p=0.002). No significant improvements were observed for perceived mobility or walking ability. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that use of the Proprio-Foot® can lower the ECW for TTAs in spite of its added weight compared to DCF.
Authors: Francesco Paradisi; Anna Sofia Delussu; Stefano Brunelli; Marco Iosa; Roberto Pellegrini; Daniele Zenardi; Marco Traballesi Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2015-05-11
Authors: Hangue Park; Muhammad S Islam; Martha A Grover; Alexander N Klishko; Boris I Prilutsky; Stephen P DeWeerth Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Eric L Weber; Phillip M Stevens; Dwiesha L England; Vahness D Swilley; Shane R Wurdeman Journal: J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng Date: 2022-07-11