Please confirm topic selection

Are you sure you want to trigger topic in your Anconeus AI algorithm?

Please confirm action

You are done for today with this topic.

Would you like to start learning session with this topic items scheduled for future?

Review Question - QID 652

In scope icon L 4 C
QID 652 (Type "652" in App Search)
A 45-year-old patient with a below knee amputation is interested in hiking as a hobby. He would like to know more about his SACH foot before selecting a different terminal device. A SACH foot or non-dynamic response (non-energy storing) foot, as compared to the dynamic response foot (energy storing) demonstrates all of the the following EXCEPT:

Less frequent replacement

13%

197/1567

Less dorsiflexion

9%

137/1567

Longer duration midstance of gait

39%

612/1567

Increased ground reaction forces to the contralateral limb

28%

433/1567

Diminished maximal gait velocity

11%

173/1567

Select Answer to see Preferred Response

bookmode logo Review TC In New Tab

The non-dynamic response foot known as the solid ankle cushion heel (SACH) was introduced in the 1950’s and consists of a non-articulating wood keel surrounded by soft foam molded in the shape of a foot. The keel is entirely rigid and is unable to dorsiflex at late mid-stance resulting in an excessive rise in the center of mass as the patient progresses through stance on the prosthetic side. The elevation of the center of mass leads to increased loads on the sound side as weight is shifted from the prosthesis to the sound limb. The dynamic response foot consists of a keel which dynamically deforms under load but retains the memory of its pre-stressed configuration to return to its original shape on removing the load. The keel effectively becomes a spring allowing sufficient dorsiflexion and decreasing load on the sound side while still providing an adequate spring-like response for push off. This also means that the dynamic response foot has increased time in midstance of the gait. The dynamic response foot allows for much more active ambulation and has a faster gait velocity potential. Hafner et al and Romo authored review articles summarizing the technology of prosthetic feet. It is noted that patients are able to detect small changes in their prosthesis and this changes their perception for their preference of terminal devices and their performance while using them.

REFERENCES (2)
Authors
Rating
Please Rate Question Quality

2.2

  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon

(47)

Attach Treatment Poll
Treatment poll is required to gain more useful feedback from members.
Please enter Question Text
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options