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

Prosthetics and Orthotics International

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 107-114

  Water, G J V D ^a   De Vries, J ^a   Mulder, M A ^a  

^a ROESSINGH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CASE REPORT; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST; DISABLED PERSON; ENERGY CONSUMPTION; FOOT; HUMAN; HYSTERESIS; LEG AMPUTATION; MALE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PROSTHESIS; RIGIDITY; TIBIA; WALKING; WEIGHT;

EID: 0031866864     PISSN: 03093646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/03093649809164471     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. CASSILAS JM, DULIEU V, COHEN M, MARCER L, DIDIER JP (1995). Bioenergetic comparison of a new energystoring foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76, 39-44.
2. COLBORNE GR, NAUMANN S, LONGMUIR PE, BERBRAYER (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.
3. CZERMECKI JM, GITTER A (1994). Prosthetic feet a scientific and clinical review of current components. Phys Med Rehabil: State Art Rev 8, 109-127.
4. DONN JM, PORTER D, ROBERTS VC (1989). The effect of footwear mass on the gait patterns of unilateral below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 13, 140-144.
5. EHARA Y, BEPPU M, MOMURA S, KUNIMI Y, TAKAHASI S (1993). Energy storing property of so-called energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74, 68-72.
6. 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.
7. VAN JAARSVELD HWL, GROOTENBOER HJ, DE VRIES J, KOOPMAN HFJM (1990). Stiffness and hysteresis properties in some prosthetic feet. Prosthet Orthot Int 14, 117-124.
8. e symposium Revalidatietechniek, gaan en staan II./edited by BMTI press, - Enschede: University Twente. p113-123.
9. LEHMANN JF, PRICE R, BOSWELL-BESSETTE S, DRALLE A, QUESTAD K (1993). Comprehensive analysis of dynamic electric response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite foot versus SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74, 853-861.
10. MACFARLANE PA, NIELSEN DH, SHURR DG, MEIER R (1991). Gait comparisons for below-knee amputees using a Flex-Foot versus a conventional prosthetic foot J Prosthet Orthot 3, 150-161.
11. NIELSEN DH, SHURR DG, GOLDEN JC, MEIER R (1988). Comparison of energy cost and gait efficiency during ambulation in below-knee amputees using different prosthetic feet - a preliminary report. J Prosther Orthot 1, 24-31.
12. PERRY J, SHANFIELD S (1993). Efficiency of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet. J Rehab Res Dev 30, 137-143.
13. a). Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet part 1: biomechanical analysis related to user benefits. Prosthet Orthot Int 21, 17-27.
14. b). 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 factors. Prosthet Orthot Int 21, 28-34.
15. 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.
16. VAN DE VEEN PG (1989). An investigation of design criteria of modular endoskeletal lower-limb prostheses. Ph.D. thesis. - Enschede: University of Technology, Twente.
17. 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.