OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO CYCLING FOR KNEE DISARTICULATION AND TRANSFEMORAL PROSTHESIS USERS: A PILOT STUDY IN THE NETHERLANDS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Cycling has a number of benefits, especially for individuals with a knee disarticulation or transfemoral prosthesis. However, the barriers they face in cycling are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To explore the barriers in cycling experienced by users with a knee disarticulation or transfemoral prosthesis, and to gather solutions to overcome these barriers. METHODOLOGY: A qualitative research approach was used. In-depth, semi-structured, self-developed interviews were conducted with experienced prosthetic users (N=8) and an adapted version was used for certified prosthetists/orthotists (CPOs) (N=3). The interview included physical, psychological, prosthetic, and bicycle-related items. FINDINGS: Based on the findings from the interviews, the following barriers and corresponding recommendations were identified: Physical barriers: Exertion, skin damage in the groin area and discomfort in the back and hip. Recommendation: Use of an electric bicycle and use of a crank shortener or saddle adjustment to overcome asymmetry in cycling. Psychological barriers: Fear of falling or fear of balance disturbances. Recommendation: Task- and context-specific training, or graded exposure to cycling during prosthetic training, along with potentially using a more advanced bike with improved balance. Prosthetic barriers: Problems with switching the knee prosthesis mode for cycling; challenges with prosthetic suspension; and discomfort caused by the socket brim design. Recommendation: Manufacturers should integrate automatic detection of cycling in microprocessor prosthetic knee joints; use of a total elastic suspension belt (TES-belt); and lowering the ventral edge of the socket. Bicycle-related barriers: Slipping of the prosthetic foot off the pedal. Recommendation: Use of anti-slip pedals or a block heel under the shoe. CONCLUSION: By addressing the challenges and barriers, we aim to promote greater engagement in cycling, which offers significant physical and psychological benefits for persons with knee disarticulation or transfemoral amputation. Eventually, this can enhance their quality of life and foster greater independence. Layman's Abstract Cycling has a number of benefits, especially for people who use above the knee or through the knee prostheses. We interviewed experienced cyclists who use these types of prosthetic legs, as well as specialists who design and fit them, using a self-developed interview that covered physical, psychological, prosthetic, and bicycle-related items that could be barriers to cycling. Based on these interviews, we identified several key barriers and corresponding solutions: Physical barriers: Exertion, skin damage in the groin area and pain in the back and hips. Recommendation: Use an electric bicycle and use a crank shortener or adjust the saddle to help with cycling balance. Psychological barriers: Fear of falling or losing balance while cycling. Recommendation: Training focused on specific tasks and situations, or gradual practice of cycling during prosthetic training, possibly with a more advanced bike that offers better balance. Prosthetic barriers: Problems with changing the knee’s cycling mode; problems with keeping the prosthesis in place; and discomfort from the edge of the socket. Recommendation: Knee manufacturer could add automatic cycling mode detection; better suspension could be achieved by using a special belt; and lowering the socket brim for more comfort. Bicycle barriers: The prosthetic foot slipping off the pedal. Recommendation: Anti-slip pedals or adding a block heel under the shoe. We hope that addressing these barriers will encourage more people who use above the knee or through the knee prostheses to cycle and enjoy the physical and psychological benefits it offers. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/44191/33491 How To Cite: de Laat F.A, Kühne S.W.M, de Vos W.C.A.J, Geertzen J.H.B. Overcoming barriers to cycling for knee disarticulation and transfemoral prosthesis users: A pilot study in The Netherlands. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2024; Volume 7, Issue 2, No.4. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v7i2.44191 Corresponding Author: Fred A. de Laat, MD, PhD,Affiliation: Libra Rehabilitation Medicine & Audiology, Tilburg/Eindhoven, The Netherlands.E-Mail: f.delaat@libranet.nlORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4348-5998
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».