Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
STUDY DESIGN: A 3-factor (foot type, speed, and mode of ambulation) repeated-measures experimental design was used. OBJECTIVES: To compare the differences in energy expenditure, gait efficiency, and relative exercise intensity in persons with transtibial amputations with various prostheses. BACKGROUND: There is a need for improved prosthetic designs to accommodate physically active persons with lower-extremity amputations. METHODS AND MEASURES: We used progressive speeds of treadmill walking (53.64, 67.05, 80.46, 93.87, and 107.28 m/min) and running (120.69, 134.1, and 147.51 m/min) with 3 different types of prostheses: the Solid Ankle Cushion Heel (SACH) foot, the Flex-Foot (FF), and the Re-Flex Vertical Shock Pylon (VSP) prosthesis. Five physically active men with unilateral transtibial amputations served as subjects (aged 31.6 +/- 4.28 years). RESULTS: The following statistically significant differences (improvements) between the Re-Flex VSP versus the FF and the SACH foot were found. Energy cost: walking (5%), running (11%); gait efficiency: walking (6%), running (9%); relative exercise intensity: walking (4%), running (5%). However, we found no significant differences between the FF and the SACH. CONCLUSIONS: The Re-Flex VSP appears to have a positive effect on energy cost, efficiency, and relative exercise intensity compared with the other prosthetic foot types during walking and running.
Hsu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: