MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980219119 · doi:10.1097/jpo.0000000000000281

Plantar Pressure Changes with Use of an Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis

2019· article· en· W2980219119 sur OpenAlexaff
Julianne Stewart, Tatiana Djafar, Richard S Miltenberger, Trevor Kingsbury, Marilynn Wyatt

Notice bibliographique

RevueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone fractures and treatments
Établissements canadiensDigital Payment Technologies (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAnkleAmputationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFoot (prosody)Physical therapyPlantar pressurePelvisGaitCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)Weight-bearingSurgeryPressure sensor

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction Limb preservation procedures have become a much more common alternative to amputation after critical limb trauma, but high levels of disability result after both lower-limb amputation and lower-limb preservation. The Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO) is a custom passive-dynamic ankle-foot orthosis developed for use in military service members with critical lower-limb injuries. A proposed mechanism for pain reduction seen with the IDEO is decreased loading or pressure experienced during weight bearing. However, until this study, no actual plantar pressure data had confirmed this unloading during walking gait, and this proposed mechanism has not been examined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an IDEO on peak plantar pressure in the total foot as well as in each of the eight areas of the foot in a sample with foot and/or ankle injury. Methods For this within-subjects study, 74 potential participants who had been prescribed a unilateral IDEO were identified from a retrospective review of a clinical registry of patients. Patients were then excluded if they had bilateral lower-limb injury, spine or pelvis injury, or central neurological disorder, yielding 42 subjects (40 males). Patients were aged 29.7 ± 8.1 years. For each patient, data collection was performed before initiating training in use of the IDEO. Pressure-sensitive insoles were used to collect plantar pressure data in both shod and IDEO conditions at self-selected walking speeds. These trials were performed in a flat, linear hallway without turns or obstacles. The foot was divided into eight regions for analysis: medial and lateral sections of the hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot, and greater and lesser toes. Results Peak pressures were significantly decreased in the affected foot with use of the IDEO with up to 64% decreases seen at the forefoot and toes. Increases in peak pressure of up to 24% were seen in some regions of the unaffected foot as well as the total foot. Discussion These findings help provide insight into the mechanism behind the improvement in function and decrease in pain that has been seen with use of the IDEO. The slight increases in plantar pressure seen in the unaffected foot with use of the IDEO may be due to higher gait velocity in the IDEO condition than in the shod condition (1.26 ± 0.14 m/s IDEO vs. 1.19 ± 0.17 m/s shod). Gait velocity was collected using instrumented gait analysis performed immediately before plantar pressure data collection. Alternately, overloading of the sound limb may be occurring due to unfamiliarity with the IDEO. Conclusions Despite a growing body of evidence for functional improvements with use of the IDEO, this is the first study to confirm that this brace can decrease peak plantar pressure, particularly in the forefoot and toes of the affected foot, during walking. This outcome provides insight to clinicians seeking a device to improve painful gait, particularly for conditions of the foot or ankle that produce pain in weight bearing. In addition, although the IDEO was designed to enable performance of high-level activities in a population with critical limb injury, this study provides support for using the IDEO for walking by those with a diverse collection of injuries.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,117
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,352

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and OrthoticsMême sujetBone fractures and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207