RééDOC
75 Boulevard Lobau
54042 NANCY cedex

Christelle Grandidier Documentaliste
03 83 52 67 64


F Nous contacter

0

Article

--";3! O
     

-A +A

Energy costs and performance of transfemoral amputees and non-amputees during walking and running

MENGELKOCH LJ; KAHLE JT; HIGHSMITH MJ
PROSTHET ORTHOT INT , 2017, vol. 41, n° 5, p. 484-491
Doc n°: 184923
Localisation : Documentation IRR

D.O.I. : http://dx.doi.org/DOI:10.1177/0309364616677650
Descripteurs : EB3 - AMPUTATION DU MEMBRE INFERIEUR, DF22 - EXPLORATION EXAMENS BILANS - MARCHE

Limited information is available concerning the effects of prosthetic
foot components on energy costs and ambulatory performance for transfemoral
amputees. OBJECTIVES: Compare energy costs (VO2;
gait economy) and ambulatory
performance (self-selected walking speeds, self-selected running speeds, peak
running speeds) differences during walking and running for transfemoral amputees
and matched, non-amputee runners. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures. METHODS:
Transfemoral amputees were accommodated and tested with three prosthetic feet:
conventional foot, solid-ankle cushioned heel (SACH); energy storing and return
foot, Renegade; and running-specific energy storing and return foot, Nitro.
RESULTS: During walking, VO2 was similar between transfemoral amputees but was
increased compared to controls. Self-selected walking speeds were slower for SACH
compared to Renegade and Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was
decreased and self-selected walking speeds were slower compared to controls.
During fixed running speeds, transfemoral amputees ran using Nitro, and VO2 was
greater compared to controls. Transfemoral amputees ran at self-selected running
speeds using Renegade and Nitro. Self-selected running speeds were slower for
Renegade compared to Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was decreased
and self-selected running speeds were slower compared to controls. VO2 peak was
similar between transfemoral amputees and controls, but controls achieved greater
peak running speeds and % grade. CONCLUSION: Energy costs were greater and
ambulatory performance was lower for transfemoral amputees compared to matched,
non-amputee controls for all prosthetic foot conditions. Clinical relevance Both
types of energy storing and return feet may improve walking performance for
transfemoral amputees by providing faster self-selected walking speeds. For
transfemoral amputees interested in performing vigorous running (exercise and
running competition), clinicians should recommend a running-specific energy
storing and return foot.

Langue : ANGLAIS

Mes paniers

4

Gerer mes paniers

0