MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2998971393 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v2i2.32955

Gait characteristics of transtibial amputees on level ground in a cohort of 53 amputees - Comparison of kinetics and kinematics with non-amputees

2020· article· en· W2998971393 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eva Pröbsting, Malte Bellmann, Thomas Schmalz, A. Hahn

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésKinematicsAnkleGround reaction forceGaitSagittal planePhysical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisMedicineKnee JointBiomechanicsRange of motionOrthodonticsPhysical therapySurgeryAnatomyPhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis BACKGROUND: The gait characteristics of transtibial amputees (TTs) have been described many times. In general, the literature reported nearly consistent results for the kinematic and kinetic parameters of the prosthetic side. However, the literature revealed inconsistent findings on kinetic parameters for determining the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis, such as the peak knee adduction moment, knee flexion moment and vertical ground reaction forces. OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to describe the sagittal kinetic and kinematic gait characteristics of the ankle and residual knee joint of the prosthetic limb and the knee loading parameters of the sound side of unilateral TTs. This specific consideration may contribute to resolving the controversy of these parameters in the literature. METHODS: We analysed our database containing gait analyses from 53 unilateral TTs and compared data to a control group (CG), also taken from our database. The sagittal kinetic and kinematic gait characteristics of the ankle and residual knee joint of the prosthetic limb, and selected knee loading parameters of the sound side (the peak knee adduction moment, knee flexion moment and vertical ground reaction forces) were evaluated. Beside these parameters we reported typical spatiotemporal gait parameters as gait velocity, step length, step length asymmetry, stance phase duration and asymmetry of stance phase duration. RESULTS: The TTs walked slower and more asymmetrically than the CG. The kinematic pattern of the prosthetic ankle differed from that found in the CG. The largest difference was observed for the range of motion of the plantarflexion at push-off, which was significantly reduced for the prosthetic foot. The residual knee joint was generally affected with respect to decreased moments and reduced knee flexion during stance phase. The peaks of the vertical ground reaction forces and knee adduction moments showed no differences between the sound side of amputees and the CG. The peak knee flexion moment at midstance was significantly reduced for the sound side of amputees in comparison with the CG. CONCLUSION: The biomechanical data measured for the prosthetic side in a cohort of 53 unilateral TT amputees conformed with the literature. The parameters determining the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis investigated in our retrospective analysis were not increased on the sound side in comparison with non-amputees. We deem it reasonable to assume that an appropriate prosthesis will reduce the likelihood of overloading the knee on the sound side during normal walking. LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT: The gait characteristics of a transtibial amputee (TT) with a prosthesis significantly deviate from normal gait patterns as shown in the literature. In general, the kinematic and kinetic parameters of the prosthetic side are described nearly consistently. However, literature revealed inconsistent results with respect to the sound side, specifically the parameters determining the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. To resolve this controversy in the literature, an analysis of a large cohort seems necessary. Therefore, we analysed gait characteristics of TTs from our gait lab database and compared them to able-bodied individuals (CG). The results showed that the TTs walked slower and more asymmetrically than the CG. The movement pattern of the prosthetic ankle differed from that found in the CG. The residual knee joint was is affected with respect to decreased moments and reduced knee flexion during stance phase. The peaks of the vertical ground reaction forces and knee adduction moments showed no differences between the sound side of amputees and the CG. The peak knee flexion moment was significantly reduced for the sound side of amputees in comparison with the CG. The biomechanical data measured for the prosthetic side concurred with findings of other studies. The controversially discussed parameters determining the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis were not increased on the sound side in comparison with non-amputees. We deem it reasonable to assume that an appropriate prosthesis will reduce the likelihood of overloading the knee on the sound side during normal walking. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32955/25788 How to Cite: Pröbsting E, Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Hahn A. Gait characteristics of transtibial amputees on level ground in a cohort of 53 amputees - comparison of kinetics and kinematics with non-amputees. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2019;Volume2, Issue2, No.1. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v2i2.32955. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:Dipl.-Ing (FH) Eva Pröbsting, Clinical Research & Services / Biomechanics, Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, Hermann-Rein-Straße 2a, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6349-2992E-MAIL: Eva.Proebsting@ottobock.de

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 candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,134
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,220
Écart entre enseignants0,204 · 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.

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

Citations15
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalMême sujetProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsTravaux en français237 207