4.5 Article

Amputee Locomotion Joint Moment Adaptations to Running Speed Using Running-Specific Prostheses after Unilateral Transtibial Amputation

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000905

Keywords

Biomechanics; Amputation; Gait; Transtibial

Funding

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease R03 Award [1R03AR062321]
  2. University of Maryland Department of Kinesiology Graduate Research Initiative Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate three-dimensional lower extremity joint moment differences between limbs and speed influences on these differences in individuals with lower extremity amputations using running-specific prostheses. Design: Eight individuals with unilateral transtibial amputations and 8 control subjects with no amputations ran overground at three constant velocities (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 m/sec). A 2 x 2 x 3 (group x leg x speed) repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustments determined statistical significance. Results: The prosthetic limb generated significantly greater peak ankle plantarflexion moments and smaller peak ankle varus, knee stance extension, knee swing flexion, knee internal rotation, hip stance flexion, hip swing flexion, hip swing extension, hip valgus, and hip external rotation moments than the intact limb did. The intact limb had greater peak hip external rotation moments than control limbs did, but all other peak moments were similar between these limbs. Increases in peak hip stance and knee swing flexion moments associated with speed were greater in the intact limb than in the prosthetic limb. Conclusion: Individuals with amputation relied on the intact limb more than the prosthetic limb to run at a particular speed when wearing running specific prostheses, but the intact joints were not overloaded relative to the control limbs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available