Report / Paper metadata
Effectiveness of a novel microprocessor-controlled prosthetic ankle compared with conventional and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic ankles in individuals with unilateral transtibial amputation: A multicentre randomised crossover study.
A crossover study of 18 people with below-knee amputation found that one motor-driven prosthetic ankle improved selected walking-mechanics measures. Those changes were not accompanied by lower measured metabolic energy expenditure.
Which devices were compared?
Participants had unilateral transtibial amputation. Researchers first measured walking with each person's everyday conventional prosthetic ankle, then compared two microprocessor-controlled ankles: Meridium and the motor-driven RoFT device. The two advanced devices were tested in a randomized crossover order.
How long did participants use each device?
Each microprocessor-controlled ankle had a two-week adaptation period. A two-week washout separated the two device conditions. Researchers used three-dimensional gait analysis and cardiopulmonary testing during treadmill walking. The short adaptation periods matter when interpreting whether the results reflect longer-term everyday use.
What mechanical changes were reported?
RoFT produced more ankle movement and greater peak positive ankle power on the amputated side than the other conditions. Some propulsion measures were higher than with Meridium, but did not differ significantly from the conventional ankle. The researchers also report improvement in selected symmetry measures and a lower first vertical-force peak on the intact limb compared with the conventional ankle.
Did walking use less energy?
Measured metabolic energy expenditure did not differ significantly among the device conditions. Better performance on an ankle-power measure therefore should not be described as a demonstrated reduction in the overall energy cost of walking. The mechanical and metabolic findings answer different questions.
What can this study establish?
This small study provides comparative biomechanical evidence under its tested conditions. It does not establish that one device is best for every amputee, that it prevents falls, or that it improves long-term participation. This page explains the abstract rather than independently reviewing the full paper. A prosthetic choice needs an assessment of the individual's goals, fit, function and clinical context.
- Journal
- Gait & posture
- Kind
- Paper metadata
- Identifier
- PMID 42659814