A comparative study of conventional and energy-storing prosthetic feet in high-functioning transfemoral amputees.

OBJECTIVE To compare the results of gait analysis, timed walking tests, and socket comfort for transfemoral amputees wearing initially a Multiflex conventional prosthetic foot and then a Vari-Flex energy-storing prosthetic foot. DESIGN Experimental crossover trial. SETTING A regional prosthetic and amputee rehabilitation tertiary referral center in a teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS Six established unilateral transfemoral prosthetic users. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Gait analysis, a timed walking test, and a Prosthetic Socket Fit Comfort Score for each amputee wearing the Multiflex foot and then repeated wearing the Vari-Flex foot. RESULTS Wearing the Vari-Flex foot, our subjects walked faster in the gait lab (1.38 +/- 0.13 m/s, P < .001) and took more equal step lengths at fast speed (1.063 +/- 0.05, P < .05). They also had greater peak ankle dorsiflexion at push-off on the prosthetic side (18.3 degrees +/-4.73 degrees, P<.001) and 3 times as much power from the prosthetic ankle at push-off (1.13 +/- 0.22 W/kg, P < .001). There were no significant changes in temporal symmetry or loading of the prosthetic limb, in the timed walking test with each foot, or in the comfort score. CONCLUSIONS A transfemoral amputee who wears an energy-storing foot can have a more symmetric gait with regard to some measures of spatial symmetry, kinetics, and kinematics than one who wears a conventional foot. However, in this study important aspects such as more symmetric loading and comfort did not differ significantly between the 2 foot types.

[1]  F. Prince,et al.  Symmetry and limb dominance in able-bodied gait: a review. , 2000, Gait & posture.

[2]  H. J. de Jongh,et al.  Prosthetic gait of unilateral transfemoral amputees: a kinematic study. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  J. Lehmann,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite Foot versus SACH foot. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  A. Lees,et al.  Adjustments in gait symmetry with walking speed in trans-femoral and trans-tibial amputees. , 2003, Gait & posture.

[5]  K. Siegel,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of the energy-storing capabilities of SACH and Carbon Copy II prosthetic feet during the stance phase of gait in a person with below-knee amputation. , 1992, Physical therapy.

[6]  B. Persson,et al.  Kinematic and kinetic gait analysis in the sagittal plane of trans-femoral amputees before and after special gait re-education , 2002, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[7]  D. Datta,et al.  Mobility outcome following unilateral lower limb amputation , 2003, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[8]  E. N. Zuniga,et al.  Gait patterns in above-knee amputees. , 1972, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[9]  A. Hof,et al.  The relationship between comfortable and most metabolically efficient walking speed in persons with unilateral above-knee amputation. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  R W Wirta,et al.  Effect on gait using various prosthetic ankle-foot devices. , 1991, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[11]  G. A. Knutson,et al.  Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: A review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance , 2005, Chiropractic & osteopathy.

[12]  D. Winter,et al.  Biomechanics of below-knee amputee gait. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  W D Spence,et al.  A methodology for studying the effects of various types of prosthetic feet on the biomechanics of trans-femoral amputee gait. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  J. Perry Kinesiology of lower extremity bracing. , 1974, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Joint moment and muscle power output characteristics of below knee amputees during running: the influence of energy storing prosthetic feet. , 1991, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  H. Hermens,et al.  Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet Part 1: Biomechanical analysis related to user benefits , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[17]  Jai Kulkarni,et al.  Association between amputation, arthritis and osteopenia in British male war veterans with major lower limb amputations , 1998 .

[18]  R. Waters,et al.  Energy cost of walking of amputees: the influence of level of amputation. , 1976, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  J. Lehmann,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of energy storing prosthetic feet: Flex Foot and Seattle Foot Versus Standard SACH foot. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  A. Lees,et al.  A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces , 1995, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[21]  K Oberg,et al.  Prosthetic gait pattern in unilateral above-knee amputees. , 1973, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[22]  Keren Fisher,et al.  Prosthetic socket fit comfort score , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[23]  H. Alaranta,et al.  Subjective benefits of energy storing prostheses , 1994, Prosthetics and orthotics international.