Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21708509›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society2011

Systematic variation of prosthetic foot spring affects center-of-mass mechanics and metabolic cost during walking.

Karl E Zelik, Steven H Collins, Peter G Adamczyk, Ava D Segal, Glenn K Klute, David C Morgenroth, Michael E Hahn, Michael S Orendurff, Joseph M Czerniecki, Arthur D Kuo

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00494143 (Metabolic Cost Savings for Transtibial Amputees Walking With the CESR Foot), which is not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00494143 phase3completednot on this map

Metabolic Cost Savings for Transtibial Amputees Walking With the CESR Foot

TypeinterventionalSponsorUS Department of Veterans AffairsRan2007 to 2012Enrolled7ConditionsTranstibial AmputationArmsCESR Prosthetic Foot, typical prosthetic foot, standardized prosthetic foot
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 150 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Understanding patient preference in prosthetic ankle stiffness.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Karl E ZelikDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA.
Steven H Collins
Peter G Adamczyk
Ava D Segal
Glenn K Klute
David C Morgenroth
Michael E Hahn
Michael S Orendurff
Joseph M Czerniecki
Arthur D Kuo
University of Washington · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USCarnegie Mellon University · USIntelligent Prosthetic Systems (United States) · USTexas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children · US

Funding

Development of Prosthetic Foot with Controlled Energy Storage and ReleaseR44HD055706 · NICHD · INTELLIGENT PROSTHETIC SYSTEMS, LLC · PI COLLINS, STEVEN H · 2007 to 2008
$747k
NICHD NIH HHS R44 HD055706NICHD NIH HHS R44HD055706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lower-limb amputees expend more energy to walk than non-amputees and have an elevated risk of secondary disabilities. Insufficient push-off by the prosthetic foot may be a contributing factor. We aimed to systematically study the effect of prosthetic foot mechanics on gait, to gain insight into fundamental prosthetic design principles. We varied a single parameter in isolation, the energy-storing spring in a prototype prosthetic foot, the controlled energy storage and return (CESR) foot, and observed the effect on gait. Subjects walked on the CESR foot with three different springs. We performed parallel studies on amputees and on non-amputees wearing prosthetic simulators. In both groups, spring characteristics similarly affected ankle and body center-of-mass (COM) mechanics and metabolic cost. Softer springs led to greater energy storage, energy return, and prosthetic limb COM push-off work. But metabolic energy expenditure was lowest with a spring of intermediate stiffness, suggesting biomechanical disadvantages to the softest spring despite its greater push-off. Disadvantages of the softest spring may include excessive heel displacements and COM collision losses. We also observed some differences in joint kinetics between amputees and non-amputees walking on the prototype foot. During prosthetic push-off, amputees exhibited reduced energy transfer from the prosthesis to the COM along with increased hip work, perhaps due to greater energy dissipation at the knee. Nevertheless, the results indicate that spring compliance can contribute to push-off, but with biomechanical trade-offs that limit the degree to which greater push-off might improve walking economy.

Indexed as

FootProstheses and ImplantsAmputeesBiomechanical PhenomenaEnergy MetabolismEnergy TransferGaitHeelHumansKneeMechanical PhenomenaMetabolismProsthesis DesignWalking

Identifiers

PMID21708509
PMCPMC4286327
OpenAlexW2156206828

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.