4.1 Article

Dynamic input to determine hip joint moments, power and work on the prosthetic limb of transfemoral amputees: ground reaction vs knee reaction

Journal

PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 140-149

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0309364611409002

Keywords

Biomechanics of prosthetic/orthotic devices; prosthetic design; rehabilitation of amputees; testing of prosthetic and orthotic components

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0345667, LP0455481]
  2. Queensland University of Technology
  3. University of Quebec in Montreal
  4. Australian Research Council [DP0345667, LP0455481] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Calculation of lower limb kinetics is limited by floor-mounted force-plates. Objectives: Comparison of hip joint moments, power and mechanical work on the prosthetic limb of a transfemoral amputee calculated by inverse dynamics using either the ground reactions (force-plates) or knee reactions (transducer). Study design: Comparative analysis. Methods: Kinematics, ground reaction and knee reaction data were collected using a motion analysis system, two force-plates, and a multi-axial transducer mounted below the socket, respectively. Results: The inverse dynamics using ground reaction underestimated the peaks of hip energy generation and absorption occurring at 63% and 76% of the gait cycle (GC) by 28% and 54%, respectively. This method also overestimated by 24% a phase of negative work at the hip (37%-56% GC), and underestimated the phases of positive (57%-72% GC) and negative (73%-98%GC) work at the hip by 11% and 58%, respectively. Conclusions: A transducer mounted within the prosthesis has the capacity to provide more realistic kinetics of the prosthetic limb because it enables assessment of multiple consecutive steps and a wide range of activities without the issue of foot placement on force-plates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available