Evidence Hub

Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet. Part 2: Subjective ratings of 2 energy storing and 2 conventional feet, user choice of foot and deciding factor

Postema K, Hermens HJ, de Vries J, Koopman HF, Eisma WH

Prosthetics and orthotics international, 1997

25 citations

Abstract

This paper is the second part of a study on biomechanical and functional properties of prosthetic feet. The first part dealt with a biomechanical analysis related to user benefits. This part deals with subjective ratings and deciding factors for trans-tibial amputees using 2 energy storing feet (ESF) and 2 conventional feet (CF). The Otto Bock Dynamic Pro and Hanger Quantum feet were used as ESF and the Otto Bock Multi Axial and Otto Bock Lager feet were used as CF. Ten trans-tibial amputees, active walkers, without stump problems, were selected (mean age: 49 years old). The study was designed as a double-blind, randomised trial and for each foot there was a habituation period of 2 weeks. Two questionnaires were designed. (A) concerned information about the preference of the subjects and (B) concerned the order of importance of difference aspects concerning a prosthesis. Results indicated that no clear preference for either the ESF or the CF existed and that the individual preference is not related to age. The items 'ability to walk fast' and 'no fatigue during walking', score statistically significantly worse for the CF2. With the small contrast between the ESF and CF, in relation to energy storing capacities, the subjects cannot distinguish between the ESF and CF. The 'absence of stump pain' and 'stability while walking' are ranked as most important aspects concerning a prosthesis. The perception of stability is likely to be related to the level and kind of activities the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free