Comparison of three pediatric prosthetic feet during functional activities

Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 78-84

  McMulkin, Mark L ^a   Osebold, William R ^a   Mildes, Rob D ^a   Rosenquist, Randy S ^b  

^a SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN   (United States)

^b Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics   (United States)

Author keywords

Agility tests; Function; Gait analysis; Pediatric; Prosthetic feet

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISABLED PERSON; ENERGY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FOOT PROSTHESIS; GAIT; HUMAN; KNEE AMPUTATION; KNEE FUNCTION; MALE; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROSTHESIS; VELOCITY;

EID: 4143123347     PISSN: 10408800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00008526-200407000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Colborne GR, Naumann S, Longmuir PE, Berbrayer D. 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 Rehab 1992;71:272-278.
2. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, et al. Comprehensive analysis of energy storing prosthetic feet: Flex Foot and Seattle Foot versus standard SACH Foot. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1993;74:1225-1231.
3. Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, Golden JC, Meier K. Comparison of energy cost and gait efficiency during ambulation in below-knee amputees using different prosthetic feet: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Orthot 1989;1(1):24-31.
4. Schneider K, Hart T, Zernicke RF, et al. Dynamics of below-knee child amputee gait: SACH foot versus Flex foot. J Biomech 1993;26:1191-1204.
5. Thomas SS, Buckon CE, Helper D, et al. Comparison of the Seattle Lite foot and Genesis II prosthetic foot during walking and running. J Prosthet Orthot 1989;12:9-14.
6. Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E, Shanfield SL. Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990;27:369-384.
7. Torburn L, Powers CM, Guiterrez R, Perry J. Energy expenditure during ambulation in dysvascular and traumatic below-knee amputees: a comparison of five prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev 1995;32:111-119.
8. Casillas JM, Dulieu V, Cohen M, et al. Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy-storing foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1995;76:39-44.
9. Barth DG, Schumacher L, Thomas SS. Gait analysis and energy cost of below-knee amputees wearing six different prosthetic feet. J Prosthet Orthot 1992;4(2):63-75.
10. Hsu MJ, Nielsen DH, Yack HJ, Shurr DG. Physiological measurements of walking and running in people with transtibial amputations with 3 different prostheses. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999;29:526-533.
11. Torburn L, Schweiger GP, Perry J, Powers CM. Below-knee amputee gait in stair ambulation: a comparison of stride characteristics using five different prosthetic feet. Clin Orthop 1994;303:185-192.