EFFECT OF TRANSTIBIAL PROSTHESIS MASS ON GAIT ASYMMETRIES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Individuals with transtibial amputation (TTA) typically walk with an asymmetrical gait pattern, which may predispose them to secondary complications and increase risk of fall. Gait asymmetry may be influenced by prosthesis mass. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of prosthesis mass on temporal and limb loading asymmetry in people with TTA following seven days of acclimation and community use. METHODS: Eight individuals with transtibial amputation participated. A counterbalanced repeated measures study, involving three sessions (each one week apart) was conducted, during which three load conditions were examined: no load, light load and heavy load. The light load and heavy load conditions were achieved by adding 30% and 50% of the mass difference between legs, at a proximal location on the prosthesis. Kinematic and ground reaction force data was captured while walking one week after the added mass. Symmetry indices between the prosthetic and intact side were computed for temporal (Stance and Swing time) and limb loading measures (vertical ground reaction force Peak and Impulse). FINDINGS: Following seven days of acclimation, no significant differences were observed between the three mass conditions (no load, light load and heavy load) for temporal (Stance time: p=0.61; Swing time: p=0.13) and limb loading asymmetry (vertical ground reaction force Peak: p=0.95; vertical ground reaction force Impulse: p=0.55). CONCLUSION: Prosthesis mass increase at a proximal location did not increase temporal and limb loading asymmetry during walking in individuals with TTA. Hence, mass increase subsequent to replacing proximally located prosthesis components may not increase gait asymmetry, thereby allowing more flexibility to the clinician for component selection. Layman's Abstract People with a below the knee amputation typically have an asymmetrical walking style, i.e., they spend more time and put more body weight on their non-amputated leg. This may result in development of knee or hip osteoarthritis of the non-amputated leg, over time. Further, an asymmetrical walking style may also predispose people to a greater number of falls. It is believed that the weight of a prosthesis may influence the walking asymmetry. It is, however, unclear if changing the weight of a prothesis during routine clinical visits (for example, switching or replacing prosthesis parts) would increase walking asymmetry. To explore this, eight individuals with a below the knee amputation had two different weights added to the top half of their prosthesis. After the addition of the weight, participants went home to use the device in their communities for seven days. Subsequently, they returned to the lab to record their walking. We observed that walking with the heavier prosthesis, using either load, did not increase the amount of time spent and body weight applied by our participants on their non-amputated side. Hence, adding mass to the top half of a prosthesis may not increase walking asymmetry. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/34609/26769 How To Cite: Seth M, Hou W, Goyarts L.R, Galassi J.P, Lamberg E.M. Effect of transtibial prosthesis mass on gait asymmetries. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2020;Volume 3, Issue 2, No.5. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v3i2.34609 Corresponding Author: Mayank Seth, PhDDelaware Limb Loss Studies Lab, University of Delaware, Newark, USA.E-mail: mseth@udel.eduORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3526-7058
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».