Select your country

EliteVT

Elan Product Page Background Banner
Elitevt (1)
Elitevt (1)
  • Elitevt (1)

The EliteVT prosthetic foot delivers shock absorption, rotation and stability to Level 3-4 users in a cosmetic and compact package. It manages the requirements of both walking and running through balancing biomimetic functionality with our proven spring technology.

  • Activity level 3
  • Activity level 4
  • Suitable for outdoor use

EliteVT Clinical Evidence Reference

Clinical Outcomes using e-carbon feet

  • Safety
    • High mean radius of curvature for Esprit-style e-carbon feet2: “The larger the radius of curvature, the more stable is the foot”
  • Mobility
    • Allow variable running speeds3
    • Increased self-selected walking speed4
    • Elite-style e-carbon feet (L code VL5987) or VT units demonstrate the second highest mobility levels, behind only microprocessor feet5
  • Loading symmetry
    • Users demonstrate confidence in prosthetic loading during high activity6
    • Improved prosthetic push-off work compared to SACH feet7
    • Increased prosthetic positive work done4
  • User satisfaction
    • High degree of user satisfaction, particularly with high activity users8

Improvements in Clinical Outcomes using shock-absorbing pylon/torque absorber compared to rigid pylon

  • Safety
    • Reduced back pain during twisting movements e.g. golf swings9
  • Mobility
    • Reduced compensatory knee flexion at loading response10
    • No reduction in step activity11
    • Blatchford torsion adaptors match the able-bodied rotational range12
  • Residual Limb Health
    • Reduced loading rate on prosthetic limb13, particularly at fast walking speeds14
    • Users feel less pressure on their residual limb15
  • User Satisfaction
    • Patient preference, citing improved comfort, smoothness of gait and easier stairs descent13

References

  • Full Reference Listing

    1. Crimin A, McGarry A, Harris EJ, et al.

      The effect that energy storage and return feet have on the propulsion of the body: A pilot study. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 2014; 228: 908–915.

    2. Curtze C, Hof AL, van Keeken HG, et al.

      Comparative roll-over analysis of prosthetic feet. J Biomech 2009; 42: 1746–1753.

    3. Strike SC, Arcone D, Orendurff M.

      Running at submaximal speeds, the role of the intact and prosthetic limbs for trans-tibial amputees. Gait Posture 2018; 62: 327–332.

    4. Ray SF, Wurdeman SR, Takahashi KZ.

      Prosthetic energy return during walking increases after 3 weeks of adaptation to a new device. J Neuroengineering Rehabil 2018; 15: 6.

    5. Wurdeman SR, Stevens PM, Campbell JH.

      Mobility analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT 5): Impact of five common prosthetic ankle-foot categories for individuals with diabetic/dysvascular amputation. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2019; 6: 2055668318820784.

      Download

    6. Haber CK, Ritchie LJ, Strike SC.

      Dynamic elastic response prostheses alter approach angles and ground reaction forces but not leg stiffness during a start-stop task. Hum Mov Sci 2018; 58: 337–346.

    7. Rock CG, Wurdeman SR, Stergiou N, Takahashi KZ.

      Stride-to-stride fluctuations in transtibial amputees are not affected by changes in push-off mechanics from using different prostheses. PloS one. 2018;13(10).

    8. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al.

      Differences in Military Obstacle Course Performance Between Three Energy-Storing and Shock-Adapting Prosthetic Feet in High-Functioning Transtibial Amputees: A Double-Blind, Randomized Control Trial. Mil Med 2016; 181: 45–54.

    9. Rogers JP, Strike SC, Wallace ES.

      The effect of prosthetic torsional stiffness on the golf swing kinematics of a left and a right-sided trans-tibial amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int 2004; 28: 121–131.

    10. Berge JS, Czerniecki JM, Klute GK.

      Efficacy of shock-absorbing versus rigid pylons for impact reduction in transtibial amputees based on laboratory, field, and outcome metrics. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 795.

    11. Klute GK, Berge JS, Orendurff MS, et al.

      Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 717–722.

    12. Flick KC, Orendurff MS, Berge JS, et al.

      Comparison of human turning gait with the mechanical performance of lower limb prosthetic transverse rotation adapters. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 29: 73–81.

    13. Gard SA, Konz RJ.

      The effect of a shock-absorbing pylon on the gait of persons with unilateral transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2003; 40: 109–124.

    14. Boutwell E, Stine R, Gard S.

      Shock absorption during transtibial amputee gait: Does longitudinal prosthetic stiffness play a role? Prosthet Orthot Int 2017; 41: 178–185.

    15. Adderson JA, Parker KE, Macleod DA, et al.

      Effect of a shock-absorbing pylon on transmission of heel strike forces during the gait of people with unilateral trans-tibial amputations: a pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31: 384–393.

EliteVT Documentation