BRADFORD SCHOLARS

    • Sign in
    View Item 
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Engineering and Informatics
    • Engineering and Informatics Publications
    • View Item
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Engineering and Informatics
    • Engineering and Informatics Publications
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Bradford ScholarsCommunitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication Date

    My Account

    Sign in

    HELP

    Bradford Scholars FAQsCopyright Fact SheetPolicies Fact SheetDeposit Terms and ConditionsDigital Preservation Policy

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Which prosthetic foot to prescribe? Biomechanical differences found during a single session comparison of different foot types hold true one year later

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Main article (499.1Kb)
    Download
    Publication date
    2017
    Author
    De Asha, Alan R.
    Barnett, C.T.
    Struchkov, Vasily
    Buckley, John G.
    Keyword
    Gait analysis; Lower-limb amputation; Methodology; Prosthetics; Foot device; Prosthetic foot; Biomechanical differences; Patient-related factors; Mechanical function
    Rights
    © 2017 Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins for the AAOP. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The final published version is available at: http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Abstract/2017/01000/Which_Prosthetic_Foot_to_Prescribe___.8.aspx
    Peer-Reviewed
    Yes
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Introduction: Clinicians typically use findings from cohort studies to objectively inform judgements regarding the potential (dis)advantages of prescribing a new prosthetic device. However, before finalising prescription a clinician will typically ask a patient to ‘try out’ a change of prosthetic device while the patient is at the clinic. Observed differences in gait when using the new device should be the result of the device’s mechanical function, but could also conceivably be due to patient related factors which can change from day-to-day and can thus make device comparisons unreliable. To determine whether a device’s mechanical function consistently has a more meaningful impact on gait than patient-related factors, the present study undertook quantitative gait analyses of a trans-tibial amputee walking using two different foot-ankle devices on two occasions over a year apart. If the observed differences present between devices, established using quantitative gait analysis, were in the same direction and of similar magnitude on each of the two occasions, this would indicate that device-related factors were more important than patient-related factors. Methods: One adult male with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation completed repeated walking trials using two different prosthetic foot devices on two separate occasions, 14 months apart. Walking speed and sagittal plane joint kinematics and kinetics for both limbs were assessed on each occasion. Clinically meaningful differences in these biomechanical outcome variables were defined as those with an effect size difference (d) between prosthetic conditions of at least 0.4 (i.e. ‘medium’ effect size). Results: Eight variables namely, walking speed, prosthetic ‘ankle’ peak plantar- and dorsi- flexion and peak positive power, and residual knee loading response flexion, peak stance-phase extension and flexion moments and peak negative power, displayed clinically meaningful differences (d > 0.4) between foot devices during the first session. All eight of these showed similar effect size differences during the second session despite the participant being heavier and older. Conclusions: Findings suggest that a prosthetic device’s mechanical function consistently has a more meaningful impact on gait than patient-related factors. These findings support the current clinical practice of making decisions regarding prosthetic prescription for an individual, based on a single session evaluation of their gait using two different devices. However, to confirm this conclusion, a case series using the same approach as the present study could be undertaken.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10454/10922
    Version
    Accepted Manuscript
    Citation
    De Asha AR, Barnett CT, Struchkov V et al (2017) Which prosthetic foot to prescribe? Biomechanical differences found during a single session comparison of different foot types hold true one year later. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 29(1): 39-43.
    Link to publisher’s version
    http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Abstract/2017/01000/Which_Prosthetic_Foot_to_Prescribe___.8.aspx
    Type
    Article
    Collections
    Engineering and Informatics Publications

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2022)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.