Ann Rehabil Med.  2018 Aug;42(4):609-616. 10.5535/arm.2018.42.4.609.

Differences in Gait Patterns of Unilateral Transtibial Amputees With Two Types of Energy Storing Prosthetic Feet

• Yang JR
• Yang HS
• Ahn DH
• Ahn DY
• Sim WS
• Yang HE

• KMID: 2420054
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2018.42.4.609

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns.
METHODS
Ten unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed.
RESULTS
On a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics.
CONCLUSION
Both energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study.

Keyword

Amputation; Prosthesis; Gait

MeSH Terms

Amputation
Amputees*
Ankle
Foot*
Gait*
Heel
Humans
Neptune
Prostheses and Implants
Supination

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Exterior of the two types of prosthetic feet: (A) 1C30 Trias and (B) 1C60 Triton.

Reference

1. Braddom RL, Chan L, Harrast MA, Kowalske KJ, Matthews DJ, Ragnarsson KT, et al. Physical medicine and rehabilitation. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences;2010.

2. Fletcher DD, Andrews KL, Hallett JW Jr, Butters MA, Rowland CM, Jacobsen SJ. Trends in rehabilitation after amputation for geriatric patients with vascular disease: implications for future health resource allocation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83:1389–93.

3. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ. Limb amputation and limb deficiency: epidemiology and recent trends in the United States. South Med J. 2002; 95:875–83.

4. Varma P, Stineman MG, Dillingham TR. Epidemiology of limb loss. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014; 25:1–8.

5. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89:422–9.

6. Kim SH, Beon YC, Son CK, Lee YH, Lee MK, Lee SH, et al. A survey study on prevalence and condition of the disabled in the Korea. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2011.

7. Paradisi F, Delussu AS, Brunelli S, Iosa M, Pellegrini R, Zenardi D, et al. The conventional non-articulated SACH or a multiaxial prosthetic foot for hypomobile transtibial amputees? A clinical comparison on mobility, balance, and quality of life. ScientificWorld-Journal. 2015; 2015:261801.

8. Ehara Y, Beppu M, Nomura S, Kunimi Y, Takahashi S. Energy storing property of so-called energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993; 74:68–72.

9. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki J, Fergason J. Energy storage and return prostheses: does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis? Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002; 17:325–44.

10. Zmitrewicz RJ, Neptune RR, Sasaki K. Mechanical energetic contributions from individual muscles and elastic prosthetic feet during symmetric unilateral transtibial amputee walking: a theoretical study. J Biomech. 2007; 40:1824–31.

11. Agrawal V, Gailey R, O’Toole C, Gaunaurd I, Finnieston A. Influence of gait training and prosthetic foot category on external work symmetry during unilateral transtibial amputee gait. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013; 37:396–403.

12. Wezenberg D, Cutti AG, Bruno A, Houdijk H. Differentiation between solid-ankle cushioned heel and energy storage and return prosthetic foot based on step-tostep transition cost. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014; 51:1579–90.

13. Fey NP, Klute GK, Neptune RR. The influence of energy storage and return foot stiffness on walking mechanics and muscle activity in below-knee amputees. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011; 26:1025–32.

14. Rigney SM, Simmons A, Kark L. Mechanical characterization and comparison of energy storage and return prostheses. Med Eng Phys. 2017; 41:90–6.

15. Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Cho B, Cunniffe B, Licht S, et al. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee’s ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83:613–27.

16. Fey NP, Silverman AK, Neptune RR. The influence of increasing steady-state walking speed on muscle activity in below-knee amputees. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010; 20:155–61.

17. Silverman AK, Fey NP, Portillo A, Walden JG, Bosker G, Neptune RR. Compensatory mechanisms in belowknee amputee gait in response to increasing steadystate walking speeds. Gait Posture. 2008; 28:602–9.

18. Neptune RR, Kautz SA, Zajac FE. Contributions of the individual ankle plantar flexors to support, forward progression and swing initiation during walking. J Biomech. 2001; 34:1387–98.

19. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki JM, Fergason J. Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: a review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002; 39:1–11.

20. Graham LE, Datta D, Heller B, Howitt J. A comparative study of oxygen consumption for conventional and energy-storing prosthetic feet in transfemoral amputees. Clin Rehabil. 2008; 22:896–901.

21. Graham LE, Datta D, Heller B, Howitt J, Pros D. A comparative study of conventional and energy-storing prosthetic feet in high-functioning transfemoral amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88:801–6.

22. Svoboda Z, Janura M, Cabell L, Elfmark M. Variability of kinetic variables during gait in unilateral transtibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012; 36:225–30.

23. Perry J, Burnfield JM. Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. 2nd ed. Thorofare: Slack Inc;2010.

24. Castro MP, Soares D, Mendes E, Machado L. Plantar pressures and ground reaction forces during walking of individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation. PM R. 2014; 6:698–707.

25. Gitter A, Czerniecki JM, DeGroot DM. Biomechanical analysis of the influence of prosthetic feet on below-knee amputee walking. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991; 70:142–8.

26. Schneider K, Hart T, Zernicke RF, Setoguchi Y, Oppenheim W. Dynamics of below-knee child amputee gait: SACH foot versus Flex foot. J Biomech. 1993; 26:1191–204.

27. Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E, Shanfield SL. Belowknee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet : a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990; 27:369–84.

28. Colborne GR, Naumann S, Longmuir PE, Berbrayer D. Analysis of mechanical and metabolic factors in the gait of congenital below knee amputees: a comparison of the SACH and Seattle feet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992; 71:272–8.