Running-specific prostheses permit energy cost similar to nonamputees.

UNLABELLED Improvements in prosthesis design have facilitated participation in competitive running for persons with lower limb loss (AMP). PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine the physiological responses of AMP using a run-specific prosthesis (RP) versus a traditional prosthesis (P) and cross-referenced with nonamputee controls (C) matched by training status, age, gender, and body composition during level treadmill running (TM). METHODS Twelve trained runners completed a multistage submaximal TM exercise during which HR and oxygen uptake (VO(2)) were obtained. Steady state measures at 134 m x min(-1) were compared between RP and P in AMP. AMP using RP (AMP-RP) and C also performed a continuous speed-incremented maximal TM test until volitional fatigue. RESULTS RP elicited lower HR and VO(2) compared with P in AMP. Using RP, AMP achieved similar VO(2max) and peak TM speed compared with C but with higher HR(max). Relative HR (%HR(max)) and oxygen uptake (%VO(2max)), the regression intercept, slope, SEE, and Pearson's r correlation were not different between AMP-RP and C. %HR(max) calculated with the published equation, %HR(max) = 0.73(%VO(2max)) + 30, was not significantly different from actual %HR(max) for AMP-RP or C in any stage. CONCLUSIONS RP permits AMP to attain peak TM speed and aerobic capacity similar to trained nonamputees and significantly attenuates HR and energy cost of submaximal running compared with a P. Use of RP confers no physiological advantage compared with nonamputee runners because energy cost at the set speed was not significantly different for AMP-RP. Current equations on the basis of the relative HR-VO(2) relationship seem appropriate to prescribe exercise intensity for persons with transtibial amputations using RP.