Comparison of the lightweight Camp Normal Activity Foot with other prosthetic feet in trans-tibial amputees: A pilot study

Clinically relevant information regarding the useability of prosthetic feet is scarce. The industry is not obliged to perform clinical studies before marketing the product. Clinicians however are limited in their possibilities (organisation and finance) to determine the useability of a technical product. This small study is an example of how in general the useability of a technical product is established in clinical practice. The Camp Normal Activity Foot (CNAF), a carbon prosthetic foot, was compared objectively and subjectively with a number of other prosthetic feet (same price bracket) in three subjects with trans-tibial (TT) amputations. The CNAF is low in weight and has favourable stiffness and hysteresis properties. The stiffness of the pylon of the CNAF seems to be limited as also is the possibility of adaptation of the CNAF. The CNAF distinguishes itself, in this study, but not convincingly with respect to the energy consumption in walking, the steptime parameters (symmetry) and the subjective judgement of the users. An additional virtue of the CNAF seems to be its light weight.

[1]  D. Shurr,et al.  Comparison of Energy Cost and Gait Efficiency During Ambulation in Below-Knee Amputees Using Different Prosthetic Feet—A Preliminary Report , 1988 .

[2]  V. C. Roberts,et al.  The effect of footwear mass on the gait patterns of unilateral below-knee amputees , 1989, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[3]  J Perry,et al.  Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. , 1990, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[4]  H. Grootenboer,et al.  Stiffness and hysteresis properties of some prosthetic feet , 1990, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[5]  Donald G. Shurr,et al.  Gait Comparisons for Below-Knee Amputees Using a Flex-Foot™ Versus a Conventional Prosthetic Foot , 1991 .

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

[7]  S. Naumann,et al.  ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL AND METABOLIC FACTORS IN THE GAIT OF CONGENITAL BELOW KNEE AMPUTEES: A Comparison of the SACH and Seattle Feet , 1992, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[8]  J Perry,et al.  Efficiency of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[9]  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.

[10]  Y. Ehara,et al.  Energy storing property of so-called energy-storing prosthetic feet. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  Sl Toh,et al.  Gait analysis study of an energy-storing prosthetic foot — a preliminary report , 1994 .

[12]  J. Didier,et al.  Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy-storing foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  H. Hermens,et al.  Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet Part 2: Subjective ratings of 2 energy storing and 2 conventional feet, user choice of foot and deciding factor , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

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