3.9 Article

Effect of prosthetic ankle units on roll-over shape characteristics during walking in persons with bilateral transtibial amputations

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL REHAB RES & DEV
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.07.0136

关键词

ankle; ankle motion; gait; kinematic; kinetic; prosthesis; prosthetic ankle units; rehabilitation; roll-over shape; transtibial amputation

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institutes of Health [1R01HD42592]
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD042592] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some important walking functions are adversely affected or eliminated in prosthesis users because of reduced or absent ankle motion. This retrospective data analysis determined the effect of prosthetic ankle units on the characteristics of the ankle-foot roll-over shape in persons with bilateral transtibial amputations. Seventeen subjects were fitted with Endolite Multiflex Ankles to provide ankle plantar-/dorsiflexion during the stance phase of gait. Quantitative gait analyses were performed as subjects walked with (I) Seattle Lightfoot II feet (baseline condition) and (2) the prosthetic ankle units added. Roll-over shape radii and effective foot length ratio were calculated and compared for the two prosthetic configurations. When subjects walked with the ankle units, ankle motion increased (p < 0.001), peak ankle plantarflexion moment during stance decreased slightly, and ankle-foot roll-over shape radii were significantly decreased (p < 0.001) compared with the baseline condition. The effective foot length ratio of the roll-over shape was found to increase with walking speed (p < 0.001), but it was not significantly affected by the prosthetic ankle units (p = 0.07). Prosthetists and manufacturers are encouraged to consider the effect of combining prosthetic components on the overall characteristics of the prosthesis and the functions they impart to the user.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据