Comparative Efficacy of Transfemoral Prosthetic Interfaces: Analysis of Gait and Perceived Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction The High-Fidelity (HiFi) interface is an emerging transfemoral interface technology. However, no comparison of this interface to traditional transfemoral interface designs is currently available. The purpose of this study is to measure the effects of the HiFi system on gait and perceived disability compared with a traditional socket design in a subject with transfemoral amputation. Methods The subject was first tested with a traditional ischial containment socket, then fit with the HiFi system, and tested again after a 30-day accommodation period. Three-dimensional motion analysis was performed using an 8-camera Vicon Motion Capture system. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire v2.0 and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis index were administered at initial and secondary testing to evaluate perceived disability. A one-way analysis of variance and Fischer's least significant difference were used to determine statistical difference between conditions. The level of significance for all tests was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results Notable results included an increase in self-selected gait velocity, prosthetic hip adduction, and hip extension. Reductions in lateral center of mass deviation during gait and in perceived disability was also shown with use of the HiFi condition. Discussion This study analyzed the effects of the HiFi Interface System on biomechanical parameters of gait and perceived disability compared with a baseline IRC condition in this elderly subject with history of TF amputation. Several improvements and markers of increased stability with use of the HiFi were noted. Perceived disability was also greatly improved comparatively. Conclusions The HiFi Interface System presented some biomechanical advantages to traditional IRC socket designs in this case, which may allow for increased stability in patients utilizing a TF prosthesis. Further research with larger samples is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".