Energy Expenditure and Substrate Utilization with Hands-Free Crutches Compared to Conventional Lower-Extremity Injury Mobility Devices

BACKGROUND: A Hands-Free crutch (HFC) is a relatively new device that can be used during the nonweightbearing period to increase mobility. The primary aim of this investigation was to examine aerobic oxygen consumption (V.o(2)) and substrate utilization with HFC compared to conventional ambulation devices as well as normal ambulation. A secondary purpose was to quantify perceived exertion, pain, and performance during each ambulation condition. METHODS: Forty participants completed 4 separate 10-minute ambulation conditions around a rectangular course. The order of the ambulation conditions was randomized and consisted of (1) walking, (2) medical knee scooter (MKS), (3) HFC, and (4) axillary crutch (AC). Indirect calorimetry was used to determine V.o(2) and the respiratory exchange ratio (RER), an indicator of substrate utilization. Perceived exertion and pain were also assessed using questionnaires. RESULTS: All mobility devices significantly elevated V.o(2) (+35%) compared to walking (13.14 ± 1.70 mL/kg/min; P < .001). AC had significantly greater V.o(2) requirements (20.26 ± 2.62 mL/kg/min) compared to both the MKS (15.28 ± 2.29 mL/kg/min; P < .001) and HFC (15.88 ± 2.03 mL/kg/min; P < .001). There was no difference in average V.o(2) between MKS and HFC (P = .368). Compared to walking (0.78 ± 0.43), RER was significantly elevated in MKS (0.81 ± 0.05, P < .001) and AC (0.84 ± 0.06, P < .001), but not in HFC (0.79 ± 0.04, P = .350). RPE and pain were elevated in all ambulatory conditions (all P values <.001). Pain was significantly greater in AC compared with MKS (P < .001) and HFC (P < .001). CONCLUSION: HFC and MKS share similar V.o(2) requirements over a 10-minute ambulation interval and are below those needed in AC. Substrate utilization in HFC was similar to regular walking with a greater reliance on lipid utilization for energy as evidenced by a lower RER. Exertion and pain scores were the most tolerable in HFC and MKS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.