Differences in military obstacle course performance between three energy-storing and shock-adapting prosthetic feet in high-functioning transtibial amputees: A double-blind, randomized control trial

6Citations
Citations of this article
101Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Approximately 683 persons engaged in military service experienced transtibial amputation (TTA) related to recent war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military TTAs function at a level beyond basic ambulation. No empirical data demonstrate which higher functioning prosthetic feet maximize injured service personnel’s ability to continue performing at a level commensurate with return to duty. This study’s purpose was to determine which of three high-functioning, energy-storing prosthetic feet maximize performance and preference in a field obstacle course (OC) and to quantify physical performance differences between TTAs and high-functioning nonamputees. Procedures: A randomized, double-blind, repeated measures experimental design compared three prosthetic feet (Ossur Variflex, Endolite Elite Blade, and Ossur Re-Flex Rotate) during performance on a field OC. TTAs accommodated with study feet and the OC before assessment. 14 TTAs and 14 nonamputee controls completed the course. Subjective and objective performance differences were compared across feet conditions and between groups. Results: Total OC completion times were similar between prosthetic feet: Elite-Blade (419 seconds ± 130), Variflex (425 seconds ± 144), and Re-Flex Rotate (444 seconds ± 220). Controls’ OC completion time (287.2 seconds ± 58) was less (p ≤ 0.05) than TTA times. In total, controls had faster completion times (p ≤ 0.05) compared to all prosthetic feet conditions in 13/17 obstacles. Re-Flex Rotate had 2 additional obstacles different (p ≤ 0.05) than controls and required more time to complete. Median RPE values were lower (p ≤ 0.05) for controls than TTA regardless of foot. Regarding foot preference for OC completion, 7/14 (50%) preferred Elite Blade, 5/14 (36%) preferred Re-Flex Rotate, and the remaining 2/14 (14%) preferred Variflex. Conclusion: Controls completed the OC faster and with less effort than TTAs regardless of prosthetic foot. No clear differences in prosthetic feet emerged during OC completion; however, individual task performance, perceived effort, and preference resulted in trends of slight performance improvement with and preference for Elite Blade, a dual function energy-storing and return foot combined with vertical shock absorption. Understanding how to maximally improve performance in such functional tasks may allow service members to best sustain physical fitness, return to their military occupational specialty and possibly in-theater duty.

References Powered by Scopus

Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion

12788Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ten years at war: Comprehensive analysis of amputation trends

144Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Amputations in U.S. military personnel in the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq

139Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Guidelines and Recommendations to Investigate the Efficacy of a Lower-Limb Prosthetic Device: A Systematic Review

16Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Sustainable, affordable and functional: reimagining prosthetic liners in resource limited environments

8Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The development of rating scales to evaluate experiential prosthetic foot preference for people with lower limb amputation

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Highsmith, M. J., Kahle, J. T., Miro, R. M., Lura, D. J., Carey, S. L., Wernke, M. M., … Quillen, W. S. (2016). Differences in military obstacle course performance between three energy-storing and shock-adapting prosthetic feet in high-functioning transtibial amputees: A double-blind, randomized control trial. Military Medicine, 181, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00286

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24015304560

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 38

67%

Researcher 11

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

9%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 16

32%

Nursing and Health Professions 13

26%

Engineering 11

22%

Sports and Recreations 10

20%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0