IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0352644.html

Toward evidence-based prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot devices: A multisite randomized crossover trial identifying performance-based, patient-reported, and biomechanical parameters sensitive to device type

Author

Listed:
  • Jason T Maikos
  • Alexis N Sidiropoulos
  • John M Chomack
  • David V Herlihy
  • Brad D Hendershot
  • Alison L Pruziner
  • Samuel L Phillips
  • Jeffrey T Heckman
  • Timothy E Moore
  • Zoe Gibbs McBride
  • Jongwoo Choi
  • Christopher L Dearth
  • The Prosthetic Foot Prescription Consortia
  • Leif M Nelson

Abstract

Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot devices is constrained by imprecise clinical guidelines and inconsistent scientific evidence, hindering optimal device selection for individuals with lower limb loss. This multisite, prospective, randomized crossover study aimed to identify patient-reported, performance-based, and biomechanical parameters sensitive to ankle-foot device type, providing a foundation for more objective and individualized prescription practices. Ninety-one individuals with unilateral transtibial limb loss completed the crossover trial, and 13 control participants without musculoskeletal impairment were enrolled to provide normative reference data. Participants were fitted with duplicate sockets and randomized to trial three ankle-foot device types: energy storing and returning, articulating, and powered. Participants were heterogeneous in demographic characteristics, including veterans, service members, and civilians. After one week of acclimation per device, participants completed performance-based (6-minute walk, Timed Up and Go, Four Square Step Test, Stair and Hill Assessment Indices, Amputee Mobility Predictor) and patient-reported (Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey) assessments; a subset (n = 29 completed) underwent full-body gait analysis to capture detailed biomechanical parameters. Biomechanical outcomes demonstrated the greatest sensitivity to device type, with 19 distinct parameters, primarily at the ankle, highlighting ankle mechanics as a key determinant of differences among prosthetic devices. Five Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire subscales were sensitive to device type, while performance-based measures showed no significant effects. Results revealed a dichotomy between biomechanical and patient-reported outcomes: Biomechanical parameters were more similar to control values for powered devices, whereas patient-reported outcomes favored non-powered devices. Linear discriminant analysis identified key gait features, including peak plantarflexion during preswing and peak ankle moment, which most strongly contributed to group separation and clinical discrimination. These findings identified distinct biomechanical and patient-reported parameters sensitive to ankle-foot device type and highlight the need for evidence-based, individualized prosthetic prescription to optimize device selection and improve patient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason T Maikos & Alexis N Sidiropoulos & John M Chomack & David V Herlihy & Brad D Hendershot & Alison L Pruziner & Samuel L Phillips & Jeffrey T Heckman & Timothy E Moore & Zoe Gibbs McBride & Jongwo, 2026. "Toward evidence-based prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot devices: A multisite randomized crossover trial identifying performance-based, patient-reported, and biomechanical parameters sensitive to device type," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0352644
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0352644
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0352644&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0352644?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0352644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.