Literature DB >> 25480541

Biomechanical characteristics, patient preference and activity level with different prosthetic feet: a randomized double blind trial with laboratory and community testing.

Silvia U Raschke1, Michael S Orendurff2, Johanne L Mattie1, David E A Kenyon1, O Yvette Jones1, David Moe3, Lorne Winder3, Angie S Wong1, Ana Moreno-Hernández4, M Jason Highsmith5, David J Sanderson6, Toshiki Kobayashi7.   

Abstract

Providing appropriate prosthetic feet to those with limb loss is a complex and subjective process influenced by professional judgment and payer guidelines. This study used a small load cell (Europa™) at the base of the socket to measure the sagittal moments during walking with three objective categories of prosthetic feet in eleven individuals with transtibial limb loss with MFCL K2, K3 and K4 functional levels. Forefoot stiffness and hysteresis characteristics defined the three foot categories: Stiff, Intermediate, and Compliant. Prosthetic feet were randomly assigned and blinded from participants and investigators. After laboratory testing, participants completed one week community wear tests followed by a modified prosthetics evaluation questionnaire to determine if a specific category of prosthetic feet was preferred. The Compliant category of prosthetic feet was preferred by the participants (P=0.025) over the Stiff and Intermediate prosthetic feet, and the Compliant and Intermediate feet had 15% lower maximum sagittal moments during walking in the laboratory (P=0.0011) compared to the Stiff feet. The activity level of the participants did not change significantly with any of the wear tests in the community, suggesting that each foot was evaluated over a similar number of steps, but did not inherently increase activity. This is the first randomized double blind study in which prosthetic users have expressed a preference for a specific biomechanical characteristic of prosthetic feet: those with lower peak sagittal moments were preferred, and specifically preferred on slopes, stairs, uneven terrain, and during turns and maneuvering during real world use.
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ambulation; Amputees; Gait; Limb loss; Mobility

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25480541     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  13 in total

1.  Sensitivity of biomechanical outcomes to independent variations of hindfoot and forefoot stiffness in foot prostheses.

Authors:  Peter Gabriel Adamczyk; Michelle Roland; Michael E Hahn
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.161

2.  Unilateral below-knee prosthesis users walking on uneven terrain: The effect of adding a toe joint to a passive prosthesis.

Authors:  Kirsty A McDonald; Rachel H Teater; Justin P Cruz; Karl E Zelik
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alix Chadwell; Laura Diment; M Micó-Amigo; Dafne Z Morgado Ramírez; Alex Dickinson; Malcolm Granat; Laurence Kenney; Sisary Kheng; Mohammad Sobuh; Robert Ssekitoleko; Peter Worsley
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 4.262

4.  Mobility analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT 5): Impact of five common prosthetic ankle-foot categories for individuals with diabetic/dysvascular amputation.

Authors:  Shane R Wurdeman; Phillip M Stevens; James H Campbell
Journal:  J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng       Date:  2019-02-13

5.  STEPFORWARD study: a randomised controlled feasibility trial of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot for older patients with vascular-related amputations.

Authors:  Natalie Vanicek; Elizabeth Coleman; Judith Watson; Kerry Bell; Catriona McDaid; Cleveland Barnett; Martin Twiste; Fergus Jepson; Abayomi Salawu; Dennis Harrison; Natasha Mitchell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Focusing research efforts on the unique needs of women prosthesis users.

Authors:  Matthew J Major; Andrew H Hansen; Elizabeth Russell Esposito
Journal:  J Prosthet Orthot       Date:  2021-01-08

7.  Prosthetic energy return during walking increases after 3 weeks of adaptation to a new device.

Authors:  Samuel F Ray; Shane R Wurdeman; Kota Z Takahashi
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-01-27       Impact factor: 4.262

8.  Laboratory- and community-based health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation using crossover and energy-storing prosthetic feet: A randomized crossover trial.

Authors:  Sara J Morgan; Cody L McDonald; Elizabeth G Halsne; Sarah M Cheever; Rana Salem; Patricia A Kramer; Brian J Hafner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees: A systematic review of associated factors and questionnaires.

Authors:  Erwin C Baars; Ernst Schrier; Pieter U Dijkstra; Jan H B Geertzen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Loading characteristics data applied on osseointegrated implant by transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses fitted with basic components during daily activities.

Authors:  Laurent Frossard
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2019-09-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.