Transmetatarsal Amputation Prosthesis with Carbon-Fiber Plate

Abstract

The transmetatarsal amputation prosthesis with a carbon-fiber plate improved gait pattern significantly in patients with transmetatarsal amputations. Drastic shoe modifications are not necessary to have the prosthesis inserted. The carbon-fiber plate functions like the spring-steel shank within the sole of the shoe. The carbon-fiber plate, the toe filler, and the total-contact insole are all mounted as a whole to ensure better foot contact. Therefore, our transmetatarsal amputation prosthesis with a carbon-fiber plate can be a good alternative choice of footwear in patients with transmetatarsal amputations.

Influence of marker models on ankle kinematics in persons with partial foot amputation: An investigation using a mechanical model

“…Hence, accounting for the influence of walking speed between investigations was not possible. Tang et al reported barefoot kinematics for a group of individuals with "mostly traumatic" TMT amputation as part of an experimental study comparing gait in several conditions, including barefoot, shoe only, or shoe plus prosthesis (insole with carbon fiber footplate) [4]. The dorsiflexion peak observed in the control group was similar to that seen in the PFA barefoot walking condition despite some dorsiflexion bias in the PFA group.…”

“…Tang et al reported that for a group of individuals with TMT amputation, the shoe and shoe plus prosthesis conditions allowed significantly greater ankle dorsiflexion during stance compared with walking barefoot or a shod control group [4]. An observational study by Dillon reported a similar pattern of ankle movement in persons with Lisfranc and TMT amputation using either toe fillers, slipper sockets, or shoes stuffed with a variety of materials, but the dorsiflexion range and peak were more normal and comparable with the 95 percent confidence interval of the control group [7].…”

“…Dillon et al suggested that a number of methodological problems endemic in this body of literature reduced confidence in the evidence [1]. For example, with the exception of two studies [2][3], marker placement was not explicitly described [4][5][6], which is problematic because marker placement defines the kinematic measurements. Since most authors reported using commercially available systems to collect these data [4][5][6], one can only assume that they followed the standard marker placement procedures required of those systems.…”

“…Such bias of the kinematic data raises concerns about the modeling and changing of markers between experimental conditions. When the total ankle range from initial plantar flexion peak to dorsiflexion peak is considered, the PFA subjects walking barefoot exhibited reduced angular excursion compared with the control group [4].…”

“…For example, with the exception of two studies [2][3], marker placement was not explicitly described [4][5][6], which is problematic because marker placement defines the kinematic measurements. Since most authors reported using commercially available systems to collect these data [4][5][6], one can only assume that they followed the standard marker placement procedures required of those systems. However, most of the studies did not describe how certain markers were placed in the presence of a prosthesis or the absence of the forefoot landmarks typically used to locate some of the markers defining the foot local coordinate system.…”