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

Prosthetics and Orthotics International

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 28-34

  Postema, K ^a   Hermens, H J ^b   De Vries, J ^c   Koopman, H F J M ^c   Eisma, W H ^d  

^a SINT MAARTENSKLINIEK   (Netherlands)

^b ROESSINGH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; ENERGY BALANCE; FEMALE; FOOT; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PROSTHESIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

EID: 0030919974     PISSN: 03093646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/03093649709164527     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. ALARANTA H, KINNUNEN A, KARKKAINEN M, POHJALAINEN T, HELIOVAARA M (1991). Practical benefits of flex-foot in below-knee amputees, J Prosthet Orthot 3, 179-181.
2. ALARANTA H, LEMPINEN VM, HAAVISTO E, POHJOLAINEN T, HURI H (1994). Subjective benefits of energy storing prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 18, 92-97.
3. AMBLARD B, ASSAIANTE C, CREMIEUX J, MARCHAND AR (1990). From posture to gait: which sensory input for which function? In: Disorders of posture and gait./edited by Brandt T, Paulus W, Bles W, Dieterich M, Krafczyk S, Straube A.-Stuttgart: Thieme Verlag. p168-176.
4. BUCHOLD G VON (1991). Der multiflex-fuß: erste klinische erfahrungen. Med Orth Tech 2, 96-99.
5. BURGESS EM, POGGI DL, HITTENBERGER DA, ZETTL JH, MOELLER DE, CARPENTER KI, FORSGREN SM (1987), Der VA-Seattle-Fuß. Med Orth Tech 1, 24-26.
6. CASILLAS JM, DULIEU V, COHEN M, MARCER I, DIDIER JP (1995). Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy storing foot and SACH foot in patients with traumatic below-knee vascular amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76, 39-44.
7. COLBORNE GR, NAUMANN S, LONGMUIR PE, BERBRAYER D (1992). Analysis of mechanical and metabolic factors in the gait of congenital below-knee amputees: a comparison of the SACH and Seattle feet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 71, 272-278.
8. EHARA Y, BEPPU M, NOMURA S, KUNIMI Y, TAKAHASHI S (1993). Energy storing property of so-called energy storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74, 68-72.
9. GAUTHIER-GAGNON C, GRISÉ MC (1994). Prosthetic profile of the amputee questionnaire: validity and reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75,1309-1314.
10. GEURTS ACH (1992). Central adaptation of postural organisation to peripheral sensorimotor impairments. Thesis. Nijmegen (ISBN: 90-373-0159-2).
11. GOH JCH, SOLOMONIDIS SE, SPENCE WD, PAUL JP (1984). Biomechanical evaluation of SACH and uniaxial feet. Prosthet Orthot Int 8, 147-154.
12. GOH JCH, TAN PH, TOH SL, TAY TE (1994). Gait analysis study of an energy-storing prosthetic foot - a preliminary report Gait Posture 2, 95-101.
13. GRISÉ MCL, GAUTHIER-GAGNON C, MARTINEAU GG (1993). Prosthetic profile of people with lower extremity amputation: conception and design of a follow-up questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74, 862-870.
14. JAMES KLB, STEIN RB (1986). Improved ankle-foot system for above-knee amputees. Am, J of Phys Med 65, 301-314.
15. LEHMANN JF, PRICE R, BOSWELL-BESSETTE S, DRALLE A (1993). Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite foot Versus SACH Foot Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74, 853-861.
16. MACFARLANE PA, NIELSEN DH, SHUR DG, MEIER CP (1991). Perception of walking difficulty by below-knee amputees using a conventional foot versus the flex-foot. J Prosthet Orthot 3, 114-119.
17. MENARD MR, MCBRIDE ME, SANDERSON DJ, MURRAY DD (1992). Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 73, 451-458.
18. NIELSON CC (1991). A survey of amputees: functional level and life satisfaction, information needs, and the prosthetist's role, J Prosthet Orthot 3, 125-129.
19. NIELSEN DH, SHUR DG, GOLDEN JC, MEIER K (1989). Comparison of energy cost and gait eficiency during ambulation in below-knee amputees using different prosthetic feet - a preliminary report J Posthet Orthot 1, 24-31.
20. POSTEMA K, HERMENS HJ, VRIES J DE, KOOPMAN HFJM, EISMA WH (1997). Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet, part 1: biomechanical analysis related to user benefit. Prosthet Orthot Int 21, 17-27.
21. SACCHETTI R, SCHMIDL H, GRONINGEN MV (1994). Orienterende Untersuchung über energiespeidherung und energierückgave von prothesenfüßen. Med Orth Tech 114, 293-295.
22. SIG (1995), National Medical Register: Health Care Information. Personnel information.
23. TORBURN L, PERRY J, AYYAPPA E, SHANFIELD SL (1990). Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 27, 369-384.
24. WIRTA RW, MASON R, CALVO K, GOLBRANSON FL (1991). Effect on gait using various prosthetic ankle-foot devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 28, 13-24.