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

Morgan, Sara; McDonald, Cody L; Halsne, Elizabeth G.; Cheever, Sarah M.; Salem, Rana; Kramer, Patricia Ann; Hafner, Brian J.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189652

Cited by 24 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite suggestions from other studies that dynamic prosthetic feet could have a greater benefit to people with transtibial amputation during stair ascent and descent, 15,17,28 this was not reflected in the results of our study. Dynamic prosthetic feet are reported to store energy during stance and release it as the foot is unweighted, increasing forward acceleration of the leg and body.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…16 Also an increase in participants' satisfaction was noted for walking, ascending stairs, running, and playing sports using the XF. 17 Although results of these studies suggest that the XF may be a promising foot for people with a transtibial amputation, and results could probably be translated to the pediatric population, additional evidence is needed to assess the potential benefits of XF relative to other feet in active children.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of a Crossover Prosthetic Foot In Active Childmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of a crossover prosthetic foot in active children with a congenital lower limb deficiency

Verheul

Verschuren

Zwinkels

et al. 2020

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Children with lower limb prostheses cannot always keep up with their peers during active play. A pediatric crossover foot may be a promising prosthetic alternative for children engaging in high-intensity movements necessary for active play. Objectives: To compare children’s walking performance, running performance, experienced competence, and cosmesis using their prescribed prosthesis compared with the crossover foot. Study Design: Pretest-posttest study. Methods: Children with lower limb amputation or deficiency were recruited. Measurements were taken at baseline with the prescribed prosthesis and 6 weeks later with the crossover foot. Walking speed, energy cost of walking, anaerobic muscle power, stair climbing speed, ankle power, and cosmesis were evaluated. Results: Four children participated in the study. Two children had increased walking speed with the same energy cost, one child had decreased speed with increased energy cost, and one child had the same speed with decreased energy cost. Muscle power increased for three of the four children and ankle power increased for all children while using the crossover foot compared to the prescribed prosthesis. Two children reported knee pain or feeling excessive knee flexion when running with the crossover foot. One child reported negative feelings toward cosmesis of the crossover foot. Conclusions: This study suggests crossover foot may benefit active children by improving walking and running performance, and decreasing energy cost. However, knee pain reports or negative feelings toward the atypical design suggest the crossover foot may not be ideal for every child. Further research is needed to determine which pediatric users would benefit from this type of prosthetic foot. Clinical relevance Children with lower limb deficiencies are active prosthetic users who often switch between low- and high-intensity movements in their daily activities. Therefore, they might benefit from a crossover prosthetic design. The preliminary findings of this study suggest the crossover foot (XF) may be a promising foot for active children.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Effectiveness Of a Crossover Prosthetic Foot In Active Childmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of a crossover prosthetic foot in active children with a congenital lower limb deficiency

Verheul

Verschuren

Zwinkels

et al. 2020

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Coached participants had greater decreases in waist circumference and fat mass, but no significant intervention effects were observed for physical functioning or physical activity. Morgan (2018) [ 82 ] Laboratory- and community-based health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation using crossover and energy storing prosthetic feet: A randomized crossover trial 27 participants (All BK) StepWatch (P. Ankle) Activity level – steps (1 month) Assess changes in lab-based endurance, perceived exertion and walking performance, and community-based step activity, self-reported mobility, fatigue, balance confidence, activity restrictions, and satisfaction for crossover and energy storing feet. Self-reported results showed the users preferred crossover to energy storing devices.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 27 papers on comparing interventions for lower-limb prosthesis users mostly compared prosthetic components, rather than comparing lifestyle interventions. Studies compared different sockets [ 66 , 79 , 84 ], suspension systems [ 68 , 78 ], knees [ 12 , 64 , 72 – 74 , 87 ], pylons [ 65 ] and feet [ 63 , 70 , 76 , 82 , 83 , 88 , 99 ]. One study compared knees and pylons [ 77 ], and one compared torsion and rigid adapters [ 85 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell

Diment

Micó-Amigo

et al. 2020

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Understanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper-and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring, with particular focus on low-resource settings. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis users during daily-living. Results: Sixty lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lowerlimb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm. Conclusions: Activity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user's requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

show abstract

“…Studies compared different sockets, 66,79,84 suspension systems, 68,78 knees, 12,64,[72][73][74]87 pylons 65 and feet. 63,70,76,82,83,88,100 One study compared knees and pylons, 77 and one compared torsion and rigid adapters. 85 These studies focused mainly on the effect of prosthetic components with different mechanical characteristics from different manufacturers on the amount the prosthesis is worn, and the physical activity level of the wearer.…”

Section: Figure 1 Flow Chart Of Selection and Sorting Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell¹,

Diment²,

Amigo³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUnderstanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper- and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis-users during daily-living.Results60 lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lower-limb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm.ConclusionsActivity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user’s requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

show abstract

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

Cited by 24 publications

References 56 publications

Effectiveness of a crossover prosthetic foot in active children with a congenital lower limb deficiency

Effectiveness of a crossover prosthetic foot in active children with a congenital lower limb deficiency

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About