Effects of prosthetic feet on metabolic energy expenditure in people with transtibial amputation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

To assess the effects of different prosthetic feet on energy costs associated with walking and running in people with transtibial amputation. The Pubmed, CINAHL, and Web-of-Science bibliographic databases were searched for original research published through June 30, 2018. References from identified articles were also reviewed. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and articles for pertinent studies. Details were extracted with a standardized template. Risk of bias was assessed using domain-based methods. Prosthetic feet were grouped into categories and compared according to energy costs associated with walking or running over various terrain conditions. Meta-analyses were conducted when data quantity and homogeneity permitted. Evidence statements were formed when results were consistent or undisputed. Fifteen studies were included. Participants (n=141) were predominantly male (87.9%), had unilateral amputation (95.7%) from non-dysvascular causes (87.9%), and were classified as unlimited community ambulators or active adults (56.0%). Participants were often young but varied in age (mean age 24.8-66.6 years). Available evidence indicates that feet with powered dorsiflexion reduce energy costs relative to dynamic response feet in unlimited community ambulators or active adults when walking on level or declined surfaces. Dynamic response feet do not significantly reduce energy costs compared to energy storing, flexible keel, or solid ankle feet when walking on level terrain. Running feet do not reduce energy costs relative to dynamic response in active adults when running. Select feet may reduce energy costs under specific conditions, but additional research is needed to confirm preliminary results. The overall body of evidence is based on small samples, comprised mostly of participants who may not well represent the population of prosthesis users and test conditions that may not well reflect how prostheses are used in daily life. However, evidence suggests energy costs are affected by prosthetic foot type only under select conditions.