Comparison of the Otto Bock solid ankle cushion heel foot with wooden keel to the low-cost CR-Equipements™ solid ankle cushion heel foot with polypropylene keel: A randomized prospective double-blind crossover study assessing patient satisfaction and energy expenditure.

BACKGROUND

The International Committee of the Red Cross supports a worldwide program of prosthetic fitting and rehabilitation. In this context, a prosthetic foot was developed and widely distributed in least developed countries.

STUDY

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient satisfaction and energy expenditure during ambulation between a low-cost prosthetic foot designed with a polypropylene keel (CR-Equipements™ solid ankle cushion heel, International Committee of the Red Cross) to a well-recognized solid ankle cushion heel foot with a wooden keel (solid ankle cushion heel foot, Otto Bock).

METHODS

A total of 15 participants with unilateral transtibial amputation were evaluated using the two prosthetic feet in a randomized prospective double-blind crossover study. Main outcomes were patient satisfaction questionnaires (Satisfaction with Prosthesis Questionnaire and prosthetic foot satisfaction) and energy expenditure (oxygen consumption-mL/kg/min, oxygen cost-mL/kg/m, and heart rate-bpm).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two prosthetic feet for satisfaction and energy expenditure.

CONCLUSION

The low-cost solid ankle cushion heel foot with polypropylene keel provides comparable satisfaction and similar energy expenditure as the solid ankle cushion heel foot with wooden keel. Clinical relevance The results of this study support the application and widespread use of the CR-Equipements™ solid ankle cushion heel foot. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, patients are well satisfied and exhibit similar outcomes at a substantially lower cost.