Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association · 2025
Comparison of different types of prosthetic feet in patients with unilateral transtibial amputation; patient perspective.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kılınç Kamacı Gizem, Artuç Şahide Eda, Ceylan Hatice, Tekin Elif, Kanlıoğlu Onur, Örücü Atar Merve, Demir Yasin, Aydemir Koray
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Prosthetic feet are designed to fulfil the function of the ankle-foot part. It is an important part of lower extremity prostheses. Although there are many different types of prosthetic feet, it is difficult to determine the most suitable prosthetic foot for each amputee. The aim of this study was to determine the experiences of patients with unilateral transtibial amputation (TTA) regarding different types of prosthetic feet [non-articulating ankle (NAA), articulating hydraulic ankle (AHA) or microprocessor-controlled foot (MPC)].
METHODS: Seventeen patients with unilateral traumatic TTA who had experience with all three prosthetic foot types were included. Patients were asked to rate 14 features of the different types of prosthetic feet they had used using a numeric rating scale.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the prosthetic feet in walking on flat roads, walking on uneven roads, walking fast, running, descending and ascending stairs, descending and ascending ramps, using with different shoes, using at home, maintenance need, and general satisfaction (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p:0.005, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p:0.042, p < 0.001, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found in the frequency of malfunction and weight of prosthetic foot types (p:0.929, p:0.114, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: From the patient perspective, MPC was better than AHA and NAA in most activities of daily living and general satisfaction. AHA was better than NAA in these activities. There was no difference in the frequency of malfunction and the weight of the prosthetic foot.
CLINICALTRIAL: Registry name: Comparison of Different Types of Prosthetic Feet; Patient Perspective, Registry number: NCT05691998.
METHODS: Seventeen patients with unilateral traumatic TTA who had experience with all three prosthetic foot types were included. Patients were asked to rate 14 features of the different types of prosthetic feet they had used using a numeric rating scale.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the prosthetic feet in walking on flat roads, walking on uneven roads, walking fast, running, descending and ascending stairs, descending and ascending ramps, using with different shoes, using at home, maintenance need, and general satisfaction (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p:0.005, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p:0.042, p < 0.001, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found in the frequency of malfunction and weight of prosthetic foot types (p:0.929, p:0.114, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: From the patient perspective, MPC was better than AHA and NAA in most activities of daily living and general satisfaction. AHA was better than NAA in these activities. There was no difference in the frequency of malfunction and the weight of the prosthetic foot.
CLINICALTRIAL: Registry name: Comparison of Different Types of Prosthetic Feet; Patient Perspective, Registry number: NCT05691998.