1 / 5

Aim

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet.

mccubbin
Download Presentation

Aim

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet Robert S. Gailey, PhD, PT; Ignacio Gaunaurd, MSPT; Vibhor Agrawal, PhD, MS (BioE); Adam Finnieston, CPO, LPO; Christopher O’Toole, MS (BioE); Ronald Tolchin, DO

  2. Aim • Determine ability of self-report and performance-based measurements to detect functional differences between 4 types of prosthetic feet in people with unilateral transtibial limb loss and either with or without peripheral vascular disease (PVD). • Relevance • U.S. system categorizes prosthetic feet by functional capabilities of people with limb loss. • However, functional differences between categories not established.

  3. Methods • 10 subjects (5 with, 5 without PVD) were tested at baseline and after training (8-10 wk) with: • Existing prosthesis. • Study socket and four prosthetic feet: • SACH (solid ankle cushion heel). • SAFE (stationary attachment flexible endoskeletal). • Talux. • Proprio. • Tests: • Self-report measures: • Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Scale [PEQ-13]. • Locomotor Capabilities Index [LCI]. • Performance-based measures: • Amputee Mobility Predictor with a prosthesis [AMPPRO]. • 6-minute walk test [6MWT]. • Step activity monitor [SAM].

  4. Results • PEQ-13, LCI, 6MWT, SAM: • No differences detected after training and after fitting with test feet. • AMPPRO: • Differences after training with existing prosthesis: • In PVD group. • Between selected feet from baseline testing (p  0.05). • PVD vs non-PVD: • Significant differences (p  0.05) between groups in AMPPRO and 6MWT with Proprio foot. • Self-report measures: • Unable to detect differences between prosthetic feet.

  5. Conclusions • Current self-report measures are unable to detect differences between prosthetic feet. • Further research must determine which selected performance-based measures are most appropriate for determining functional difference between prosthetic foot designs.

More Related