4.6 Article

Running-specific prosthesis model, stiffness and height affect biomechanics and asymmetry of athletes with unilateral leg amputations across speeds

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211691

关键词

prostheses; sprinting; amputee; symmetry; transtibial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effects of different configurations of prostheses on the biomechanics of athletes with unilateral transtibial amputation during running. The results suggest that changes in prostheses model, stiffness, and height can affect contact length, stance average vertical ground reaction force, step frequency, and leg asymmetry.
Athletes with transtibial amputation (TTA) use running-specific prostheses (RSPs) to run. RSP configuration likely affects the biomechanics of such athletes across speeds. We determined how the use of three RSP models (Catapult, Sprinter and Xtend) with three stiffness categories (recommended, +/- 1), and three heights (recommended, +/- 2 cm) affected contact length (L-c), stance average vertical ground reaction force (F-avg), step frequency (f(step)) and asymmetry between legs for 10 athletes with unilateral TTA at 3-7 m s(-1). The use of the Xtend versus Catapult RSP decreased L-c (p = 2.69 x 10(-7)) and F-avg asymmetry (p = 0.032); the effect on L-c asymmetry diminished with faster speeds (p = 0.0020). The use of the Sprinter versus Catapult RSP decreased F-avg asymmetry (p = 7.00 x 10(-5)); this effect was independent of speed (p = 0.90). The use of a stiffer RSP decreased L-c asymmetry (p <= 0.00033); this effect was independent of speed (p >= 0.071). The use of a shorter RSP decreased L-c (p = 5.86 x 10(-6)), F-avg (p = 8.58 x 10(-6)) and f(step) asymmetry (p = 0.0011); each effect was independent of speed (p >= 0.15). To minimize asymmetry, athletes with unilateral TTA should use an Xtend or Sprinter RSP with 2 cm shorter than recommended height and stiffness based on intended speed.

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

4.6
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