PTCohortJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

Individual stiffness optimization of dorsal leaf spring ankle-foot orthoses in people with calf muscle weakness is superior to standard bodyweight-based recommendations.

Niels F J Waterval, Merel-Anne Brehm, Jaap Harlaar and 1 others

PMID 34103064

WHAT IT FOUND

Body weight-based stiffness recommendations for dorsal leaf spring AFOs often prescribe orthoses that are too stiff.

Experimentally optimizing stiffness to find a more flexible setting reduced walking energy cost by an additional 4.9% compared to the supplier's recommendation.

Key findings

01The supplier's body weight-based recommendation matched the experimentally optimized optimal stiffness in only 23.5% of participants.

02Experimentally optimized AFOs were significantly more flexible and reduced walking energy cost by an additional 4.9% compared to the supplier-recommended stiffness.

03The optimized stiffness increased walking speed by 2.5% compared to the supplier-recommended stiffness, a difference that was statistically significant but clinically marginal.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study only evaluated walking on level ground. It is unknown if the more flexible optimized AFO performs as well during other daily activities like stair climbing or walking uphill, where stiffer AFOs might be beneficial. The optimization procedure was primarily based on walking energy cost, which may bias the results toward stiffness levels that favor this specific metric. The study used a specific brand of AFO (Carbon Ankle7), so the exact stiffness values may not directly translate to other dorsal leaf spring devices. Three participants were excluded from the analysis because their left and right legs were optimized separately, which might introduce selection bias.

Declared interests

The study was funded by the Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds. No other conflicts of interest were declared in the provided text.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that a more flexible AFO is universally superior. The study found that the supplier's recommendation was often too stiff for level-ground energy efficiency, but the authors explicitly warn that this flexibility might worsen performance in conditions requiring more support, such as loaded walking or stairs.

Read it on PubMed →