Comparison of four different categories of prosthetic feet during ramp ambulation in unilateral transtibial amputees

Prosthetics and Orthotics International

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 380-389

  Agrawal, Vibhor ^a,b   Gailey, Robert S ^a,b   Gaunaurd, Ignacio A ^a,b   O'Toole, Christopher ^c   Finnieston, Adam ^d   Tolchin, Ronald ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b GRECC Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^d Arthur Finnieston Prosthetics + Orthotics   (United States)

^e Baptist Hospital Neuroscience Center   (United States)

Author keywords

biomechanics; Biomechanics of prosthetic orthotic devices; gait; gait analysis; physiotherapy; prosthetic feet; prosthetics; rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BELOW KNEE AMPUTATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DISABLED PERSON; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FOOT PROSTHESIS; FOOT SOLE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILIZATION; RAMP AMBULATION; SENSOR; UNILATERAL TRANSTIBIAL AMPUTATION; WALKING; AMPUTATION; BODY SIZE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXERCISE; FOOT; GAIT; LIMB PROSTHESIS; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TIBIA; WEIGHT BEARING;

ADULT; AMPUTATION; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; BODY SIZE; FEMALE; FOOT; GAIT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL EXERTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; TIBIA; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 84955268417     PISSN: 03093646     EISSN: 17461553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0309364614536762     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. HCFA Common Procedure Coding System HCPCS 2001. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001.
2. Medicare Region C,. Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics Orthotic Supplier (DMEPOS) manual. Columbia, SC: Palmetto GBA, 2005, pp. 53.5-53.6.
3. Gailey R, Allen K, Castles J, et al. Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008; 45 (1): 15-29.
4. Royer TD, Wasilewski CA,. Hip and knee frontal plane moments in persons with unilateral, trans-tibial amputation. Gait Posture 2006; 23 (3): 303-306.
5. Agrawal V, Gailey R, O'Toole C, et al. Influence of gait training and prosthetic foot category on external work symmetry during unilateral transtibial amputee gait. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013; 37 (5): 396-403.
6. Morgenroth DC, Segal AD, Zelik KE, et al. The effect of prosthetic foot push-off on mechanical loading associated with knee osteoarthritis in lower extremity amputees. Gait Posture 2011; 34 (4): 502-507.
7. Powers CM, Torburn L, Perry J, et al. Influence of prosthetic foot design on sound limb loading in adults with unilateral below-knee amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75 (7): 825-829.
8. McIntosh AS, Beatty KT, Dwan LN, et al. Gait dynamics on an inclined walkway. J Biomech 2006; 39 (13): 2491-2502.
9. Vickers DR, Palk C, McIntosh AS, et al. Elderly unilateral transtibial amputee gait on an inclined walkway: a biomechanical analysis. Gait Posture 2008; 27 (3): 518-529.
10. Perry J, Shanfield S,. Efficiency of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev 1993; 30 (1): 137-143.
11. Gitter A, Czerniecki JM, DeGroot DM,. Biomechanical analysis of the influence of prosthetic feet on below-knee amputee walking. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 70 (3): 142-148.
12. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki J, et al. Energy storage and return prostheses: does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis? Clin Biomech 2002; 17 (5): 325-344.
13. Van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, Geurts AC, et al. A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41 (4): 555-570.
14. Agrawal V, Gailey R, O'Toole C, et al. symmetry in external work (SEW): a novel method of quantifying gait differences between prosthetic feet. Prosthet Orthot Int 2009; 33 (2): 148-156.
15. Agrawal V, Gailey R, Gaunaurd I, et al. Comparison between microprocessor-controlled ankle/foot and conventional prosthetic feet during stair negotiation in people with unilateral transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013; 50 (7): 1-10.
16. Koch M,. Measuring plantar pressure in conventional shoes with the TEKSCAN sensory system. Biomed Tech 1993; 38 (10): 243-248 (Plantardruckmessung im Konfektionsschuh mit der TEKSCAN Sensorfolie).
17. Mueller MJ, Strube MJ,. Generalizability of in-shoe peak pressure measures using the F-scan system. Clin Biomech 1996; 11 (3): 159-164.
18. Fradet L, Alimusaj M, Braatz F, et al. Biomechanical analysis of ramp ambulation of transtibial amputees with an adaptive ankle foot system. Gait Posture 2010; 32 (2): 191-198.
19. Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E, et al. Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990; 27 (4): 369-384.
20. Macfarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, et al. Gait comparisons for below-knee amputees using a flex-foot(TM) versus a conventional prosthetic foot. J Prosthet Orthot 1991; 3 (4): 150-161.
21. Morgenroth DC, Gellhorn AC, Suri P,. Osteoarthritis in the disabled population: a mechanical perspective. PM R 2012; 4 (5 Suppl.): S20-S27.
22. Zmitrewicz RJ, Neptune RR, Walden JG, et al. The effect of foot and ankle prosthetic components on braking and propulsive impulses during transtibial amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87 (10): 1334-1339.