Re: COMPONENTS THAT LAST
Chris L Johnson
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: COMPONENTS THAT LAST
Creator:
Chris L Johnson
Date:
3/7/1998
Text:
>Hi all,
>This request for input may seem simple, but I have an bilateral below
knee
>amputee who seems to have some special needs....
>He currently wears iceross suspension systems with Fillauer Shuttle
>locks, (which work great, endolite Ankles and Seattle light Feet. He
misses
>the shockabsorbing features the Stratus Unit and the Reflex Feet have
>given him, as they reduced the impact and relieved him of the back and
knee pain.
>Unfortunately they did not last.
>I am looking for components that will provide shockabsobtion, and are
>reliable. Does anyone have any experience with some of the other feet
>on the market wich would stand up for such a client with a excessive
level of
>activity?
Eugene:
Here a patient and industry insider perspective on reliability and
consumer education and empowerment.
There will always be some tradeoff or balance with increase in capability
with respect to reliability. God is the best designer. We are striving
to even approach the standard of self-repairing, biological designs. A
solid, tool-steel foot would be very reliable...but not very capable.
Unlike our natural limbs, the man-made items start downhill as soon as
you bolt them on. As a very active BK, I know just how transient our
prosthetic hardware is. Heck, I've broken all kinds of components in my
lifetime! Many of us in the industry work hard to provide products that
work well and last. I can tell you it is a very difficult job! It's as
hard to arrive at as the socket that fits just right...all the time.
I can't make any promises on absolute reliability, but, I can tell you my
direct experience that the College Park Trustep has been the most
reliable and all-activities-considered capable foot I've ever worn. I
believe the shock absorption and reliability you seek is there to a
reasonable extent. Our design is ideal for bilats, because we more
closely imitate the anatomic functions than most, if not all of the
competition (IMHO). For even more shock absorption, you can add a vert
shock pylon on top of our feet, or even a really thick Alpha liner, for
example (I use the 9mm). Ah there's a case in point! Is my Alpha
absolutely reliable? No. But the things work so well I put up with the
fact they wear and get old. I'm just happy as a clam I can get the
technology!
Our hard components are super reliable. Our Spectra sock, shell, and
bumpers need maintenance and there's no way around that. We have a whole
bunch of very high activity people on our foot who do not complain about
the reliability, mostly due to the fact that they would not part with the
performance of the feet. Could reliability be better? Always! Is the
reliability acceptable. I think very much so. Especially now with
improvements we've worked very hard on.
I encourage you and your patient to try us. Use ALL the free trial
period. Also, as a very active bilat, your patient would be a very good
candidate for new ideas we are working on. He would be ideal for testing
some new components we will soon be introducing which are (patent
pending) even more performance and reliability enhancing. You'd have to
work through Eric Robinson, our Marketing VP on that aspect. If you
order, please let me know personally (please call). Personally, I prefer
bilats for design feedback because they must interface the ground only
through prosthetics.
>I learned as a practitioner, that not all the expensive new goods
>out ther are reliable and I, in this instance, would like to provide
this
>client with something reliable and functional wich suits his needs. He
lives
>2 hours away from my practice, and I need to assure him and the payment
>agency that we have a reliable plan for him in the future.
>Thank you in advance for your oppinions and suggestions.
>
>Eugene Banziger, CPO
I hope I have made a point about reliability without seeming to back
peddle. I.e., no prosthetic component is absolutely reliable, I think
ours are very reasonably reliable, etc. Here is another issue. Pardon
my little personal soap box :-)
Speaking as an amputee about an amputee empowerment issue, may I
respectfully submit that there is another way to deal with patients,
which is left entirely to prosthetist discretion. That is, to educate
and empower your patients to be more involved in doing their own
maintenance and some problem intervention. I applaud you or other
prosthetists to make the effort to take this approach with some patients.
It is how I operate and wouldn't think of driving 2 hours to my
prosthetist for every little thing. If I were your patient, I'd go
functional and operate without cosmetic covers (or use a removable skin
sleeve like the one from PRS), and do all my own maintenance. It's just
the way I am. I realize many are more conscious of appearance and don't
care for the techie look.
I understand there are risks to patient empowerment due to reality
distortion fields produced by our fine lawyer friends. A quote for the
day: what began in the American revolution in courage, will end in fear
with lawyers... -me. There are also risks to keeping patients in the
dark (prosthetist disappears back into mystery room and reappears with
magic leg...).
I believe is best for the mechanically inclined patients who need the
complexity of higher-functioning components to not be kept in the dark.
I understand there is a certain level of risk that you, the prosthetists
must take on if you take this approach. Then again, patients who take on
ownership are likely to be less inclined to play the blame game when
real-world problems strike?
I rarely - if ever - fail foot components any more. But I do jump in
there and do maintenance if needed. If I need a stiffer bumper for a
running clinic, I get in there and in 10 minutes put one in. No big
deal. I'll travel in Europe or elsewhere, to hike or rock hop, for
example, with only one foot (the one I am wearing), and bring a very bare
minimum of parts. I trust the foot that much, and know if I need to
repair something I can without need of outside help. The amount of
flexibility and peace of mind this affords me as an amputee is
tremendous.
As a designer in the field, ever increasing reliability is what I strive
for. But perfect reliability lives only in the minds of insurance
bureaucrats (why do you need more than one leg in a lifetime?). In an
ideal world, all patients would interact with their artificial bodies
just as they do with their natural bodies. How many patients go to
doctors for routine maintenance like cleaning and lubing on their
natural bodies? Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think you get the idea.
Just some random, blabbering thoughts. Please let me know if we can help
you in any way. Check out our website please.
Chris (CJ) Johnson
Director of Engineering,
College Park Industries, Inc. <URL Redacted>www.college-park.com
(810) 294-7950 (at CPI), (616) 664-4173 (home office)
<Email Address Redacted>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at <URL Redacted>
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>This request for input may seem simple, but I have an bilateral below
knee
>amputee who seems to have some special needs....
>He currently wears iceross suspension systems with Fillauer Shuttle
>locks, (which work great, endolite Ankles and Seattle light Feet. He
misses
>the shockabsorbing features the Stratus Unit and the Reflex Feet have
>given him, as they reduced the impact and relieved him of the back and
knee pain.
>Unfortunately they did not last.
>I am looking for components that will provide shockabsobtion, and are
>reliable. Does anyone have any experience with some of the other feet
>on the market wich would stand up for such a client with a excessive
level of
>activity?
Eugene:
Here a patient and industry insider perspective on reliability and
consumer education and empowerment.
There will always be some tradeoff or balance with increase in capability
with respect to reliability. God is the best designer. We are striving
to even approach the standard of self-repairing, biological designs. A
solid, tool-steel foot would be very reliable...but not very capable.
Unlike our natural limbs, the man-made items start downhill as soon as
you bolt them on. As a very active BK, I know just how transient our
prosthetic hardware is. Heck, I've broken all kinds of components in my
lifetime! Many of us in the industry work hard to provide products that
work well and last. I can tell you it is a very difficult job! It's as
hard to arrive at as the socket that fits just right...all the time.
I can't make any promises on absolute reliability, but, I can tell you my
direct experience that the College Park Trustep has been the most
reliable and all-activities-considered capable foot I've ever worn. I
believe the shock absorption and reliability you seek is there to a
reasonable extent. Our design is ideal for bilats, because we more
closely imitate the anatomic functions than most, if not all of the
competition (IMHO). For even more shock absorption, you can add a vert
shock pylon on top of our feet, or even a really thick Alpha liner, for
example (I use the 9mm). Ah there's a case in point! Is my Alpha
absolutely reliable? No. But the things work so well I put up with the
fact they wear and get old. I'm just happy as a clam I can get the
technology!
Our hard components are super reliable. Our Spectra sock, shell, and
bumpers need maintenance and there's no way around that. We have a whole
bunch of very high activity people on our foot who do not complain about
the reliability, mostly due to the fact that they would not part with the
performance of the feet. Could reliability be better? Always! Is the
reliability acceptable. I think very much so. Especially now with
improvements we've worked very hard on.
I encourage you and your patient to try us. Use ALL the free trial
period. Also, as a very active bilat, your patient would be a very good
candidate for new ideas we are working on. He would be ideal for testing
some new components we will soon be introducing which are (patent
pending) even more performance and reliability enhancing. You'd have to
work through Eric Robinson, our Marketing VP on that aspect. If you
order, please let me know personally (please call). Personally, I prefer
bilats for design feedback because they must interface the ground only
through prosthetics.
>I learned as a practitioner, that not all the expensive new goods
>out ther are reliable and I, in this instance, would like to provide
this
>client with something reliable and functional wich suits his needs. He
lives
>2 hours away from my practice, and I need to assure him and the payment
>agency that we have a reliable plan for him in the future.
>Thank you in advance for your oppinions and suggestions.
>
>Eugene Banziger, CPO
I hope I have made a point about reliability without seeming to back
peddle. I.e., no prosthetic component is absolutely reliable, I think
ours are very reasonably reliable, etc. Here is another issue. Pardon
my little personal soap box :-)
Speaking as an amputee about an amputee empowerment issue, may I
respectfully submit that there is another way to deal with patients,
which is left entirely to prosthetist discretion. That is, to educate
and empower your patients to be more involved in doing their own
maintenance and some problem intervention. I applaud you or other
prosthetists to make the effort to take this approach with some patients.
It is how I operate and wouldn't think of driving 2 hours to my
prosthetist for every little thing. If I were your patient, I'd go
functional and operate without cosmetic covers (or use a removable skin
sleeve like the one from PRS), and do all my own maintenance. It's just
the way I am. I realize many are more conscious of appearance and don't
care for the techie look.
I understand there are risks to patient empowerment due to reality
distortion fields produced by our fine lawyer friends. A quote for the
day: what began in the American revolution in courage, will end in fear
with lawyers... -me. There are also risks to keeping patients in the
dark (prosthetist disappears back into mystery room and reappears with
magic leg...).
I believe is best for the mechanically inclined patients who need the
complexity of higher-functioning components to not be kept in the dark.
I understand there is a certain level of risk that you, the prosthetists
must take on if you take this approach. Then again, patients who take on
ownership are likely to be less inclined to play the blame game when
real-world problems strike?
I rarely - if ever - fail foot components any more. But I do jump in
there and do maintenance if needed. If I need a stiffer bumper for a
running clinic, I get in there and in 10 minutes put one in. No big
deal. I'll travel in Europe or elsewhere, to hike or rock hop, for
example, with only one foot (the one I am wearing), and bring a very bare
minimum of parts. I trust the foot that much, and know if I need to
repair something I can without need of outside help. The amount of
flexibility and peace of mind this affords me as an amputee is
tremendous.
As a designer in the field, ever increasing reliability is what I strive
for. But perfect reliability lives only in the minds of insurance
bureaucrats (why do you need more than one leg in a lifetime?). In an
ideal world, all patients would interact with their artificial bodies
just as they do with their natural bodies. How many patients go to
doctors for routine maintenance like cleaning and lubing on their
natural bodies? Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think you get the idea.
Just some random, blabbering thoughts. Please let me know if we can help
you in any way. Check out our website please.
Chris (CJ) Johnson
Director of Engineering,
College Park Industries, Inc. <URL Redacted>www.college-park.com
(810) 294-7950 (at CPI), (616) 664-4173 (home office)
<Email Address Redacted>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at <URL Redacted>
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Citation
Chris L Johnson, “Re: COMPONENTS THAT LAST,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/210380.
