Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Jul;19(6):609-16.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.02.005.

A comparison of two prosthetic feet on the multi-joint and multi-plane kinetic gait compensations in individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation

Heather A Underwood  1 , Craig D Tokuno, Janice J Eng
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A comparison of two prosthetic feet on the multi-joint and multi-plane kinetic gait compensations in individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation

Heather A Underwood et al. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2004 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the effects of two different prosthetic feet on the three-dimensional kinetic patterns of both the prosthetic and sound limbs during unilateral trans-tibial amputee gait.

Design: Eleven individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation participated in two walking sessions: once while using the conventional SAFE foot, the other while using the dynamic Flex foot.

Background: Despite the wide variation in the design of prosthetic feet, the benefits of these prostheses remain unclear.

Methods: During each test session, peak joint moments and powers in the sagittal, transverse and frontal planes were examined, as subjects walked at a comfortable speed.

Results: The majority of the kinetic differences that occurred due to the changing of prosthetic foot type were limited to ankle joint variables in the sagittal plane with greater peak moments and power during propulsion for the Flex foot compared to the SAFE foot. However, effects were also found at joints proximal to the prosthesis (e.g. knee) and differences were also found in the kinetics of the sound limb.

Conclusion: The dynamic Flex foot allowed subjects to rely more heavily on the prosthetic foot for propulsion and stability during walking with minimal compensations at the remaining joints.

Relevance: Determining the biomechanical differences between the conventional and dynamic prosthetic feet may advocate the use of one prosthetic foot type over another. This information, when used in conjunction with subjective preferences, may contribute to higher functioning and greater satisfaction for individuals with a lower limb amputation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Photo of A, the SAFE II prosthetic foot and B, the Flex-Walk prosthetic foot.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Barr AE, Siegel KL, Danoff JV, McGarvey CL, Tomasko A, Sable I, Stanhope SJ. Biomechanical comparison of the energy-storing capabilities of SACH and Carbon Copy II prosthetic feet during the stance phase of gait in a person with below-knee amputation. Phys Ther. 1992;72:344–354. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Eng JJ, Winter DA. Kinetic analysis of the lower limbs during walking: what information can be gained from a three-dimensional model? J Biomech. 1995;28:753–758. - PubMed
    1. 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;70:142–148. - PubMed
    1. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, Dralle A, Questad K, deLateur BJ. Comprehensive analysis of energy storing prosthetic feet: Flex foot and Seattle foot versus standard SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:1225–1231. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding