We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy-storing foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995 January
In this study, the metabolic performances of a new energy-storing foot (Proteor) and of the solid-ankle cushion heel (SACH) are compared. Twelve patients with traumatic below-knee amputations (mean age: 50.0 +/- 19.9 years) and 12 patients with vascular below-knee amputations (mean age: 73 +/- 7 years) were studied. Oxygen uptake (VO2) was measured in all the subjects on a walkway at a self-selected velocity; only the subjects with traumatic amputation were tested on a level treadmill (progressive speed: 2.4-4 and 6 km/h), and then in two randomized trials: incline (+5%) and decline walking treadmill test at 4 km/h. Vascular explorations were done in the vascular patients: distal pressure measurements, pulse plethysmography, transcutaneous oxygen tension. Free walking was improved in subjects with traumatic amputation using the energy-storing foot (+6%), with a better bioenergetic efficiency (0.24 +/- 0.4mL/kg.m vs 0.22 +/- 0.04mL/kg.m). However, in subjects with vascular amputation, this foot did not produce an increased free velocity nor an improved energy cost. During the level treadmill test, the traumatic amputee subjects showed a decrease of energy expenditure with the new prosthetic foot, more significant at sufficient speed (4 km/h): 17.00 +/- 3.42 vs 14.67 +/- 2.05 mL/kg/min (p < .05). The same effect is shown during the incline (19.31 +/- 2.80 vs 16.79 +/- 2.32 mL/kg/min-p < .02) and decline walking tests (14.13 +/- 3.64 vs 11.81 +/- 1.54mL/kg/min-p < .02). There is no significant difference in cardiocirculatory effects between the two types of prosthetic foot. Despite a lower velocity, the subjects with vascular amputation exceed 70% of the maximal heart rate, with the cardiocirculatory factor being the main cause of walking restriction. The energy-storing foot should be reserved for active and fast walkers, whereas the SACH foot seems more suitable for elderly patients with amputation with a slow walk.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app