Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi Research Article
Comparing Plantarflexor Power and Function using Carbon Fiber Versus Traditional Thermoplastic Ankle Foot Orthoses: Case Series
| Mary K Hastings1*, Michael M Dailey2, Dequan Zou1, David R Sinacore1 and Michael Mueller1 | ||
| 1Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA 63108 | ||
| 2Orthotic & Prosthetic Design, St. Louis, Missouri, USA 63110 | ||
| Corresponding Author : | Mary K Hastings Program in Physical Therapy Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri, USA Tel: +1(314)286-1433 Fax: +1(314)286 1410 Email: hastingsmk@wustl.edu |
|
| Received March 03, 2015; Accepted May 29, 2015; Published May 30, 2015 | ||
| Citation: Mary K Hastings, Michael M Dailey, Dequan Zou, David R Sinacore and Michael Mueller (2015) Comparing Plantarflexor Power and Function using Carbon Fiber Versus Traditional Thermoplastic Ankle Foot Orthoses: Case Series. Clin Res Foot Ankle 3:168. doi:10.4172/2329-910X.1000168 | ||
| Copyright: © 2015 Hastings MK. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. | ||
Related article at Pubmed Scholar Google |
||
Abstract
Background: Thermoplastic ankle foot orthoses (TAFO) control the foot during swing and initial contact of walking. Carbon fiber AFOs (CAFO) has the added ability to store and return energy at push off. The purpose of this report is to determine if plantarflexor power and function can be improved with a CAFO compared to a TAFO and identify factors that may be related to plantarflexor power improvement in two adults with reduced ankle muscle performance.
Case Descriptions: Two participants with reduced ankle muscle performance completed a gait analysis and the 6 minute walk (6MW) test wearing each AFO. Physical function was higher in Participant 1 compared to Participant 2 as measured by the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and walking speed.
Outcomes: Participant 1’s 6MW distance and plantarflexor power improved wearing the CAFO compared to the TAFO (6MW distance: TAFO=427 m, CAFO=553 m and Plantarflexor power: TAFO=1.16 W/kg, CAFO=1.56 W/kg). Participant 2 showed similar outcomes in both AFO conditions (6MW distance: TAFO=290 m, CAFO=276 m and plantarflexor power: TAFO=0.89 W/kg, CAFO=0.60 W/kg).
Discussion: A CAFO increased walking speed and plantarflexor power compared to a TAFO in a person with a relatively high level of physical function but not in a person with a relatively low level of physical function. These preliminary results suggest a sufficiently high level of physical function is required to “engage” the CAFO and benefit from its energy storing capabilities.
