These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Energy costs and performance of transfemoral amputees and non-amputees during walking and running: A pilot study.
    Author: Mengelkoch LJ, Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ.
    Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int; 2017 Oct; 41(5):484-491. PubMed ID: 27885098.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Limited information is available concerning the effects of prosthetic foot components on energy costs and ambulatory performance for transfemoral amputees. OBJECTIVES: Compare energy costs (VO2; gait economy) and ambulatory performance (self-selected walking speeds, self-selected running speeds, peak running speeds) differences during walking and running for transfemoral amputees and matched, non-amputee runners. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures. METHODS: Transfemoral amputees were accommodated and tested with three prosthetic feet: conventional foot, solid-ankle cushioned heel (SACH); energy storing and return foot, Renegade; and running-specific energy storing and return foot, Nitro. RESULTS: During walking, VO2 was similar between transfemoral amputees but was increased compared to controls. Self-selected walking speeds were slower for SACH compared to Renegade and Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was decreased and self-selected walking speeds were slower compared to controls. During fixed running speeds, transfemoral amputees ran using Nitro, and VO2 was greater compared to controls. Transfemoral amputees ran at self-selected running speeds using Renegade and Nitro. Self-selected running speeds were slower for Renegade compared to Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was decreased and self-selected running speeds were slower compared to controls. VO2 peak was similar between transfemoral amputees and controls, but controls achieved greater peak running speeds and % grade. CONCLUSION: Energy costs were greater and ambulatory performance was lower for transfemoral amputees compared to matched, non-amputee controls for all prosthetic foot conditions. Clinical relevance Both types of energy storing and return feet may improve walking performance for transfemoral amputees by providing faster self-selected walking speeds. For transfemoral amputees interested in performing vigorous running (exercise and running competition), clinicians should recommend a running-specific energy storing and return foot.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]