Literature DB >> 7811172

Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy-storing foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations.

J M Casillas1, V Dulieu, M Cohen, I Marcer, J P Didier.   

Abstract

In this study, the metabolic performances of a new energy-storing foot (Proteor) and of the solid-ankle cushion heel (SACH) are compared. Twelve patients with traumatic below-knee amputations (mean age: 50.0 +/- 19.9 years) and 12 patients with vascular below-knee amputations (mean age: 73 +/- 7 years) were studied. Oxygen uptake (VO2) was measured in all the subjects on a walkway at a self-selected velocity; only the subjects with traumatic amputation were tested on a level treadmill (progressive speed: 2.4-4 and 6 km/h), and then in two randomized trials: incline (+5%) and decline walking treadmill test at 4 km/h. Vascular explorations were done in the vascular patients: distal pressure measurements, pulse plethysmography, transcutaneous oxygen tension. Free walking was improved in subjects with traumatic amputation using the energy-storing foot (+6%), with a better bioenergetic efficiency (0.24 +/- 0.4mL/kg.m vs 0.22 +/- 0.04mL/kg.m). However, in subjects with vascular amputation, this foot did not produce an increased free velocity nor an improved energy cost. During the level treadmill test, the traumatic amputee subjects showed a decrease of energy expenditure with the new prosthetic foot, more significant at sufficient speed (4 km/h): 17.00 +/- 3.42 vs 14.67 +/- 2.05 mL/kg/min (p < .05). The same effect is shown during the incline (19.31 +/- 2.80 vs 16.79 +/- 2.32 mL/kg/min-p < .02) and decline walking tests (14.13 +/- 3.64 vs 11.81 +/- 1.54mL/kg/min-p < .02). There is no significant difference in cardiocirculatory effects between the two types of prosthetic foot. Despite a lower velocity, the subjects with vascular amputation exceed 70% of the maximal heart rate, with the cardiocirculatory factor being the main cause of walking restriction. The energy-storing foot should be reserved for active and fast walkers, whereas the SACH foot seems more suitable for elderly patients with amputation with a slow walk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7811172     DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9993(95)80040-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  8 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of a prototype foot/ankle prosthesis.

Authors:  P M Quesada; M Pitkin; J Colvin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng       Date:  2000-03

2.  Systematic methodology for the design of a flexible keel for energy-storing prosthetic feet.

Authors:  T S Jang; J J Lee; D H Lee; Y S Yoon
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Comparison of Rectified and Unrectified Sockets for Transtibial Amputees.

Authors:  Jack R Engsberg; S Wayne Sprouse; Mary L Uhrich; Barbara R Ziegler; F Daniel Luitjohan
Journal:  J Prosthet Orthot       Date:  2008

Review 4.  Exercise performance of lower-extremity amputees.

Authors:  K H Ward; M C Meyers
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Energetic consequences of using a prosthesis with adaptive ankle motion during slope walking in persons with a transtibial amputation.

Authors:  Benjamin J Darter; Jason M Wilken
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 6.  Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation.

Authors:  C Hofstad; H Linde; J Limbeek; K Postema
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004

7.  Prosthetic ankle push-off work reduces metabolic rate but not collision work in non-amputee walking.

Authors:  Joshua M Caputo; Steven H Collins
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Energy storing and return prosthetic feet improve step length symmetry while preserving margins of stability in persons with transtibial amputation.

Authors:  Han Houdijk; Daphne Wezenberg; Laura Hak; Andrea Giovanni Cutti
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 4.262

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.