Influence of gait training and prosthetic foot category on external work symmetry during unilateral transtibial amputee gait

Background: Prosthetic foot prescription guidelines lack scientific evidence and are concurrent with an amputee’s concurrent with an amputee’s Medicare Functional Classification Level (K-Level) and categorization of prosthetic feet. Objective: To evaluate the influence of gait training and four categories of prosthetic feet (K1, K2, K3, and microprocessor ankle/foot) on Symmetry in External Work for K-Level-2 and K-Level-3 unilateral transtibial amputees. Design: Randomized repeated-measures trial. Methods: Five K-Level-2 and five K-Level-3 subjects were tested in their existing prosthesis during Session 1 and again in Session 2, following 2 weeks of standardized gait training. In Sessions 3–6, subjects were tested using a study socket and one of four randomized test feet. There was an accommodation period of 10–14 days with each foot. Symmetry in External Work for positive and negative work was calculated at each session to determine symmetry of gait dynamics between limbs at self-selected walking speeds. Results: K-Level-2 subjects had significantly higher negative work symmetry with the K3 foot, compared to K1/K2 feet. For both subject groups, gait training had a greater impact on positive work symmetry than test feet. Conclusion: Higher work symmetry is possible for K-Level-2 amputees who are trained to take advantage of K3 prosthetic feet designs. There exists a need for an objective determinant for categorizing and prescribing prosthetic feet. Clinical relevance Findings that gait training can influence symmetry of gait dynamics and that K-Level-2 amputees can achieve greater work symmetry with a K3 foot having a “J-shaped” ankle and heel-to-toe footplate could potentially impact prosthetic care and foot prescription by clinicians and reimbursement guidelines by third-party health-care payers.

[1]  G. Gyte,et al.  Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  Vibhor Agrawal,et al.  Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[3]  S. Collins,et al.  The effect of prosthetic foot push-off on mechanical loading associated with knee osteoarthritis in lower extremity amputees. , 2011, Gait & posture.

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

[5]  Special challenges in outcome studies for amputation surgery and prosthetic rehabilitation , 2006 .

[6]  M. Nash,et al.  The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  T. Hortobágyi,et al.  Age causes a redistribution of joint torques and powers during gait. , 2000, Journal of applied physiology.

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

[9]  Klaas Postema,et al.  A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  M Koch [Measuring plantar pressure in conventional shoes with the TEKSCAN sensory system]. , 1993, Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering.

[11]  M J Mueller,et al.  Generalizability of in-shoe peak pressure measures using the F-scan system. , 1996, Clinical biomechanics.

[12]  C. Detrembleur,et al.  The 3-D motion of the centre of gravity of the human body during level walking. II. Lower limb amputees. , 1998, Clinical biomechanics.

[13]  Robert Gailey,et al.  Symmetry in External Work (SEW): A Novel Method of Quantifying Gait Differences Between Prosthetic Feet , 2009, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[14]  M. Koch,et al.  Plantardruckmessung im Konfektionsschuh mit der TEKSCAN Sensorfolie. In-shoe Plantar Measurement with TEKSCAN Sensor System , 1993 .

[15]  R. Gailey,et al.  Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[16]  M. Lebiedowska,et al.  The Effect of a Talux® Prosthetic Foot on Gait Parameters and Limb Loading of Nonvascular Transtibial Amputees , 2010 .

[17]  E. Ayyappa,et al.  Influence of prosthetic foot design on sound limb loading in adults with unilateral below-knee amputations. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  J. Shaw,et al.  An analysis of dynamic forces transmitted through the foot in diabetic neuropathy. , 1998, Diabetes care.

[19]  M. J. Muêller,et al.  Hip and ankle walking strategies: effect on peak plantar pressures and implications for neuropathic ulceration. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  K. Postema,et al.  Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation. , 2004, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[21]  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.

[22]  V. Macellari,et al.  Pattern of abnormal tangential forces in the diabetic neuropathic foot. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

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

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

[25]  L. Portney,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .