Laboratory- and community-based health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation using crossover and energy-storing prosthetic feet: A randomized crossover trial

Sara J Morgan, Cody L McDonald, Elizabeth G Halsne, Sarah M Cheever, Rana Salem, Patricia A Kramer and Brian J Hafner

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 2, 1-18

Abstract: Contemporary prosthetic feet are generally optimized for either daily or high-level activities. Prosthesis users, therefore, often require multiple prostheses to participate in activities that span a range of mobility. Crossover feet (XF) are designed to increase the range of activities that can be performed with a single prosthesis. However, little evidence exists to guide clinical prescription of XF relative to traditional energy storing feet (ESF). The objective of this study was to assess the effects of XF and ESF on health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation. A randomized crossover study was conducted to assess changes in laboratory-based (endurance, perceived exertion, walking performance) and community-based (step activity and self-reported mobility, fatigue, balance confidence, activity restrictions, and satisfaction) outcomes. Twenty-seven participants were fit with XF and ESF prostheses with standardized sockets, interfaces, and suspensions. Participants were not blinded to the intervention, and wore each prosthesis for one month while their steps were counted with an activity monitor. After each accommodation period, participants returned for data collection. Endurance and perceived exertion were measured with the Six-Minute Walk Test and Borg-CR100, respectively. Walking performance was measured using an electronic walkway. Self-reported mobility, fatigue, balance confidence, activity restrictions, and satisfaction were measured with survey instruments. Participants also reported foot preferences upon conclusion of the study. Differences between feet were assessed with a crossover analysis. While using XF, users experienced improvements in most community-based outcomes, including mobility (p = .001), fatigue (p = .001), balance confidence (p = .005), activity restrictions (p = .002), and functional satisfaction (p

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189652 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 89652&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0189652

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189652

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().