POLYCENTRIC EXOPROSTHETIC KNEE JOINTS – EXTENT OF SHORTENING DURING SWING PHASE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: An often assumed advantage of polycentric knee joints compared to monocentric ones is the improved ground clearance during swing phase due to the geometric shortening of the lower leg segment (LLS). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether polycentric knee joints considerably improve ground clearance and to evaluate the influence of prosthetic alignment on the extent of ground clearance. METHODOLOGY: 11 polycentric and 2 monocentric knee joints were attached to a rigid, stationary testing device. Shortening of the LLS and the resulting ground clearance during knee flexion were measured. Prosthetic components were mounted at the same height and the anterior-posterior position was in accordance with the manufacturer's alignment recommendations. FINDINGS: Shortening of up to 14.7 (SD=0.0) mm at the instance of minimal ground clearance during swing phase was measured. One knee joint elongated by 4.4 (SD=0.0) mm. Measurements of the ground clearance demonstrated differences up to 25.4 (SD=0.0) mm. One monocentric knee joint provided more ground clearance when compared to 8 of the polycentric knee joints investigated. CONCLUSION: Only some polycentric knee joints shorten appreciably during swing phase. With an optimized prosthetic alignment and a well-designed swing phase control, a monocentric knee joint may generate greater ground clearance compared to a polycentric knee joint. LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT Tripping is a safety risk for amputees and it is mainly affected by ground clearance during swing phase. An often assumed advantage of polycentric knee joints compared to monocentric ones is the improved ground clearance during swing phase due to the geometric shortening of the lower leg segment (LLS). Based on this statement safety benefits for above knee-amputees due to reduced danger of stumbling are discussed commonly for the entire group of polycentric knee joints. We believe that this statement is not true for all polycentric knee joint designs. Therefore, we analyzed 11 polycentric and two monocentric knee joints in a rigid, stationary testing device with their individual prosthetic alignments according to the manufacturer’s alignment recommendations. Shortening of the LLS and the resulting ground clearance during knee flexion were measured. The results showed shortening effects of up to 15 mm. One knee joint elongated by 4 mm. One monocentric knee joint provided more ground clearance when compared to 8 of the polycentric knee joints investigated. We conclude, that only some polycentric knee joints shorten appreciably during swing phase. With an optimized prosthetic alignment a monocentric knee joint may generate greater ground clearance compared to a polycentric knee joint. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/33768/26547 How To Cite: Köhler T.M, Bellmann M, Blumentritt S. Polycentric Exoprosthetic Knee Joints – Extent of Shortening during Swing Phase. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2020;Volume3, Issue1, No.5. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v3i1.33768 Corresponding Author: Thomas Maximilian Köhler, MScOttobock: Hermann-Rein-Straße 2a, 37075, Göttingen.E-mail: thomasmaximilian.koehler@ottobock.deORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5063-121X
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».