User preference and patient benefits of a novel energy storing and return foot: A randomized, cross-over clinical trial.
Pawel Maciejasz, Tymoteusz Budny, Michael Sauer and 6 others
PMID 39630588WHAT IT FOUND
In 20 adults with transtibial amputation, the new foot improved perceived mobility versus the everyday foot, but pain and other main outcomes did not show enough improvement. 55% preferred it, especially on slopes and uneven terrain.
Key findings
01Perceived mobility (PLUS-M) improved with the novel foot compared with the everyday foot at baseline, with a mean difference of 2.3 T-score points and P=0.0007.
02The other primary comparisons, including pain and meeting prosthetic foot needs, did not reach statistical significance.
03Fifty-five percent preferred the novel foot overall, and preference was highest for walking on inclines (85%), declines (80%), and uneven terrain (80%).
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.
What it does not show
Only 20 participants were analyzed, and the study was designed as a feasibility trial, so it cannot show the true size of benefit for pain, meeting foot needs, or other outcomes. Participants and fitting practitioners were not blinded, and the feet looked different, so preference and questionnaire responses may be biased. The sample overrepresented current users of the comparator foot, so results may not apply to all active transtibial amputees. The significant PLUS-M difference was versus the everyday foot at baseline, not versus the comparator after adjustment.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Ottobock, the manufacturer of the Evanto foot. Several authors were employed by Ottobock or its subsidiaries, and other authors received research funding grants and fees for lectures from Ottobock.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof the foot works for all amputees or reduces pain. Only perceived mobility versus the everyday foot was significant, and the study was small, unblinded, and funded by the manufacturer.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →