In a prospective, controlled study, 186 prosthetic rubber feet of different designs were fitted to amputees with trans-tibial prostheses. There were 158 amputees available for follow-up. The amputee compliance was good and 89% were satisfied with their device. After 18 months of use one VI-Solid rubber foot from VVAF in Cambodia had failed, as compared to 11% failures with the same foot with a heel cavity, 3% with the EB-1 sandwich construction from POF in Vietnam, all performing significantly better than the 62% encountered with the vulcanized rubber foot from ICRC in Cambodia; the latter representing half of the feet failing in amputees walking bare-footed. Nearly all failures were located at the foot-sole or the keel. The failure rate was 20% for the HI-Cambodia foot after 12 months. After 24 months of use, still only one VI-Solid rubber foot had failed and this foot design was found superior to the others in regard of durability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jensen et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: