OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns. METHODS: Ten unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed. RESULTS: On a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics. CONCLUSION: Both energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study.
Amputation ; Amputees* ; Ankle ; Foot* ; Gait* ; Heel ; Humans ; Neptune ; Prostheses and Implants ; Supination

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of a newly-developed spinal orthoses (V-LSO) by comparing the stabilizing effect, abdominal pressure, and comfort of 3 different semirigid LSOs (classic LSO, V-LSO, and CybertechⓇ ) during various body movements. Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers (23∼47 years, 24 males, 6 females) were selected. A dual inclinometer measured the range of motion (ROM) while the participants performed flexion/extension and lateral flexion of the lumbar spine with 3 LSOs.The LSO’s pressure on the abdominal surface was measured using 9 pressure sensors while lying, sitting, standing, flexion/extension, lateral flexion, axial rotation, and lifting a box. Comfort and subjective immobilization were analyzed by a questionnaire. Results: V-LSO had a statistically significant effect on flexion over CybertechⓇ . No significant differences were noted during extension and lateral flexion between the 3 LSOs. The abdominal pressure showed no significant differences while supine. While sitting, standing, and lifting a box, the mean abdominal pressure for V-LSO were significantly higher than those for Cybertech Ⓡ . During lumbar flexion, the mean abdominal pressures for classic LSO and V-LSO were significantly higher than that of CybertechⓇ . For extension, lateral flexion and axial rotation, the abdominal pressure for V-LSO was significantly higher than those of classic LSO and CybertechⓇ . In the subjective analysis, V-LSO and CybertechⓇ scored best for comfort. Conclusion The V-LSO and CybertechⓇ were more comfortable than the classic LSO, and hence, may have improved compliance with decreased discomfort. V-LSO may be superior to the other LSOs in restricting lumbar movement and increasing intraabdominal pressure.

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of a newly-developed spinal orthoses (V-LSO) by comparing the stabilizing effect, abdominal pressure, and comfort of 3 different semirigid LSOs (classic LSO, V-LSO, and CybertechⓇ ) during various body movements. Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers (23∼47 years, 24 males, 6 females) were selected. A dual inclinometer measured the range of motion (ROM) while the participants performed flexion/extension and lateral flexion of the lumbar spine with 3 LSOs.The LSO’s pressure on the abdominal surface was measured using 9 pressure sensors while lying, sitting, standing, flexion/extension, lateral flexion, axial rotation, and lifting a box. Comfort and subjective immobilization were analyzed by a questionnaire. Results: V-LSO had a statistically significant effect on flexion over CybertechⓇ . No significant differences were noted during extension and lateral flexion between the 3 LSOs. The abdominal pressure showed no significant differences while supine. While sitting, standing, and lifting a box, the mean abdominal pressure for V-LSO were significantly higher than those for Cybertech Ⓡ . During lumbar flexion, the mean abdominal pressures for classic LSO and V-LSO were significantly higher than that of CybertechⓇ . For extension, lateral flexion and axial rotation, the abdominal pressure for V-LSO was significantly higher than those of classic LSO and CybertechⓇ . In the subjective analysis, V-LSO and CybertechⓇ scored best for comfort. Conclusion The V-LSO and CybertechⓇ were more comfortable than the classic LSO, and hence, may have improved compliance with decreased discomfort. V-LSO may be superior to the other LSOs in restricting lumbar movement and increasing intraabdominal pressure.

Objective: To compare the convenience and effectiveness of the existing lumbosacral orthoses (LSO) (classic LSO and Cybertech) and a newly developed LSO (V-LSO) by analyzing postoperative data. Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed from May 2019 to November 2019 and enrolled and analyzed 88 patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease scheduled for elective lumbar surgery. Three types of LSO that were provided according to the time of patient registration were applied for 6 weeks. Patients were randomized into the classic LSO group (n=31), Cybertech group (n=26), and V-LSO group (n=31). All patients were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) preoperatively and underwent plain lumbar radiography (anteroposterior and lateral views) 10 days postoperatively. Lumbar lordosis (LS angle) and frontal imbalance were measured with and without LSO. At the sixth postoperative week, a follow-up assessment with the ODI and orthosis questionnaire was conducted. Results: No significant differences were found among the three groups in terms of the LS angle, frontal imbalance, ODI, and orthosis questionnaire results. When the change in the LS angle and frontal imbalance toward the reference value was defined as a positive change with and without LSO, the rate of positive change was significantly different in the V-LSO group (LS angle: 41.94% vs. 61.54% vs. 83.87%; p=0.003). Conclusion The newly developed LSO showed no difference regarding its effectiveness and compliance when compared with the existing LSO, but it was more effective in correcting lumbar lordosis.