title: Energy costs and performance of transfemoral amputees and non-amputees during walking and running: A pilot study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Limited information is available concerning the effects of prosthetic foot components on energy costs and ambulatory performance for transfemoral amputees.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  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.
  
  
  METHODS
  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, VO2was 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 VO2was 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. VO2peak was similar between transfemoral amputees and controls, but controls achieved greater peak running speeds and % grade.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: 1 University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, St. Augustine, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Larry J
authors.initials: LJ
authors.lastname: Mengelkoch
authors.affiliation: 2 University of South Florida, School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Jason T
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Kahle
authors.affiliation: 3 VA/DOD, Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: M Jason
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Highsmith
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000671:Amputation, Surgical / Q000379:methods; D000674:Amputees / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001186:Artificial Limbs; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D004734:Energy Metabolism / Q000502:physiology*; D005269:Femur / Q000601:surgery; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010101:Oxygen Consumption / Q000502:physiology; D010865:Pilot Projects; D011474:Prosthesis Design / Q000379:methods*; D012016:Reference Values; D012420:Running / Q000502:physiology*; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis
keywords: Gait efficiency; energy storing and return prosthetic feet; running prosthesis