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

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.

[1]  Ming Zhang,et al.  Perception of socket alignment perturbations in amputees with transtibial prostheses. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[2]  M. Haine,et al.  Van Damme A. , 1986 .

[3]  Kenton R Kaufman,et al.  Precision and accuracy of an ankle-worn accelerometer-based pedometer in step counting and energy expenditure. , 2005, Preventive medicine.

[4]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Energy storage and return prostheses: does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis? , 2002, Clinical biomechanics.

[5]  M. Orendurff,et al.  Influence of malalignment on socket reaction moments during gait in amputees with transtibial prostheses. , 2013, Gait & posture.

[6]  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.

[7]  David A Boone,et al.  Quantification of prosthetic outcomes: elastomeric gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspension. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  Toshiki Kobayashi,et al.  Effect of alignment changes on socket reaction moments during gait in transfemoral and knee-disarticulation prostheses: case series. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  G D Reiber,et al.  Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  Readiness to change level of physical activity in leisure time among physically inactive Danish adults , 2009, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[11]  Dirk Lefeber,et al.  Prosthetic feet: State-of-the-art review and the importance of mimicking human ankle–foot biomechanics , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[12]  M Parnianpour,et al.  Comparison of methods for the calculation of energy storage and return in a dynamic elastic response prosthesis. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[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]  J. Tobin,et al.  Readiness to change physical activity and dietary practices and willingness to consult healthcare providers , 2004, Health research policy and systems.

[15]  Energy cost of walking , 1995, Paraplegia.

[16]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[17]  R. Neptune,et al.  The effect of foot and ankle prosthetic components on braking and propulsive impulses during transtibial amputee gait. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  Mark Edwards,et al.  Effects of prosthetic foot forefoot flexibility on oxygen cost and subjective preference rankings of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[19]  Helco G van Keeken,et al.  Comparative roll-over analysis of prosthetic feet. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[20]  Ming Zhang,et al.  Effect of transtibial prosthesis alignment changes on out-of-plane socket reaction moments during walking in amputees. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[21]  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.

[22]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  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.

[24]  Mark D Geil,et al.  An iterative method for viscoelastic modeling of prosthetic feet. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  S. Collins,et al.  The effects of a controlled energy storage and return prototype prosthetic foot on transtibial amputee ambulation. , 2012, Human movement science.

[26]  P. Brantley,et al.  Congruence of Readiness to Change, Self-Efficacy, and Decisional Balance for Physical Activity and Dietary Fat Reduction , 2003, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

[27]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF PROSTHETIC FEET ON BELOW-KNEE AMPUTEE WALKING , 1991, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[28]  Suzanne G. Leveille,et al.  Outcomes of a Community‐Based Dissemination of the Health Enhancement Program , 2002, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[29]  J. Jensen,et al.  Mechanical testing of prosthetic feet utilized in low-income countries according to ISO-10328 standard , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

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

[31]  D A Boone,et al.  Step activity monitor: long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function. , 1999, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[32]  R. Neptune,et al.  Mechanical energetic contributions from individual muscles and elastic prosthetic feet during symmetric unilateral transtibial amputee walking: a theoretical study. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[33]  J. LoGerfo,et al.  A five state dissemination of a community-based disability prevention program for older adults , 2006, Clinical interventions in aging.

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

[35]  Ming Zhang,et al.  Effect of alignment changes on sagittal and coronal socket reaction moment interactions in transtibial prostheses. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[36]  N Berme,et al.  Significance of nonsagittal power terms in analysis of a dynamic elastic response prosthetic foot. , 1999, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[37]  Jessica D Ventura,et al.  The effects of prosthetic ankle dorsiflexion and energy return on below-knee amputee leg loading. , 2011, Clinical biomechanics.

[38]  Teri G Rosenbaum-Chou,et al.  Effect of alignment changes on socket reaction moments while walking in transtibial prostheses with energy storage and return feet. , 2014, Clinical biomechanics.