Article

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.

Langue : ANGLAIS