References
- Arya A P, Lees A, Nirula H C, Klenerman L. A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces. Prosthet Orthot Int 1995; 19: 37–45
- Kabra S G, Narayanan R. Equipment and methods for laboratory testing of ankle-foot prostheses as exemplifies by the Jaipur foot. J Rehabil Res 1991; 28: 23–34
- Karunakaran V V. Quality assurance and optimization studies of light weight PU prosthetic foot. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2006; 19: 63–69
- Jensen J S, Heim S. Evaluation of polypropylene prostheses designed by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Prosthet Orthot Int 2000; 24: 47–54
- Jensen J S, Raab W. Clinical field testing of ATLAS prosthetic system for trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002; 26: 86–92
- Jensen J S, Craig J G, Mtala L B, Zelaya C M. Clinical field follow-up of high density polyethylene (HDPE) Jaipur prosthetic technology for trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2004; 28: 230–244
- Jensen J S, Nilsen R, Thanh N H, Saldana A, Harte C. Clinical field-testing of poly-urethane feet for trans-tibial amputees in tropical low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006a; 30: 182–194
- Jensen J S, Nilsen R, Zeffer J, Fisk J, Hartz C. Clinical field-testing of vulcanized rubber feet for trans-tibial amputees in tropical low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006b; 30: 195–212
- Jensen J S, Raab W, Fisk J, Hartz C, Saldana A, Harte C. Quality of poly-propylene sockets for trans-tibial prostheses in low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006c; 30: 45–59
- Sethi P K, Udawat M P, Kasliwal S C, Chandra R. Vulcanized rubber foot for lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1978; 2: 125–136