Biomechanical characteristics of transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses during gait: A review of literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osseointegration (OI) is an emerging technique that allows a direct connection between the bone and a titanium metal implant, allowing the direct attachment of bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) to address the problems associated with socket prostheses. This review article aims to compare the biomechanical features of gait when using a transfemoral BAP in comparison to healthy gait, and in comparison to the gait of traditional transfemoral socket prosthesis users. METHODS: A computer-based literature search of electronic databases since inception (ranging from 1967 to 2004 depending on the database) to June 14, 2022, identified peer-reviewed articles focusing on the temporal-spatial, kinematic, kinetic, and electromyography data related to transfemoral BAP gait. Eight articles were included that focused on these biomechanical features of gait in adults with BAP and were compared with socket prosthesis users or healthy gait. RESULTS: Compared with healthy participants, prosthesis users after OI surgery have slower speed and cadence, lower symmetry, longer duration of swing phase, increased pelvic and trunk motion, more hip extension, larger moments on the intact limb, and lower forces on the prosthetic side. Compared with transfemoral socket prosthesis gait, BAP gait shows faster cadence and longer duration of support phase. There are limited and inconsistent data on changes in trunk, pelvic, and hip motion with OI. CONCLUSION: Based on this review, transfemoral BAP improve spatial-temporal parameters closer to normal gait when compared to socket gait, but there are persisting deficits compared with healthy gait. Additional studies are needed to confirm the changes in kinematics and kinetics when walking with a BAP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".