A NEW TEMPORARY TRAINING PROSTHESIS FOR PEOPLE WITH TRANSTIBIAL AMPUTATION: A TECHNICAL NOTE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While waiting to receive a prosthesis, individuals with amputations could benefit from using a temporary training prosthesis to expedite the rehabilitation process and prepare them for subsequent walking with their prosthesis. OBJECTIVES: To design and build a temporary training prosthesis for people with a transtibial amputation. METHODOLOGY: Various temporary training prostheses were designed and simulated using SolidWorks software, followed by fabricating and testing multiple prototypes. Initial tests were conducted on five able bodied subjects without amputation to evaluate comfort, ensure the prototype functioned as intended, and to refine the design. The final prototype design had no weight-bearing on the residual limb end and required the person to wear a shrinker or silicone liner. FINDINGS: SolidWorks simulations showed that the device could tolerate up to 200 kg load. Subjective feedback indicated that body weight is primarily supported by the thigh section, while partially utilizing the patellar tendon and tibial flares. The thigh section can be shifted 5 cm up or down and 2.5 cm to the front or back from the knee joint center (to enhance knee stability or function). Additionally, the thigh angle can be adjusted to 0, 5, 10, or 15 degrees to accommodate hip flexion contracture. The shank section width is adjustable and can be shifted up or down based on the residual limb shape. All five able-bodied participants successfully walked with the non-amputee version of the temporary prosthesis prototype and the device withstood walking, sitting, and standing loads. CONCLUSION: An adjustable temporary training prosthesis was successfully designed, and pilot tested by five able-bodied individuals. Future testing will involve five experienced prosthetic users before conducting trials with individuals with a new transtibial amputation. Layman's Abstract A novel temporary training prosthesis was developed for individuals with new transtibial amputations while they await the healing of their residual limb and the receipt of a prosthesis. Utilizing SolidWorks computer-aided design software, various designs were explored, and rigorous testing was conducted to ensure durability and functionality. Adjustable features were incorporated to accommodate different body shapes and sizes. Initial testing on five people without amputations confirmed device effectiveness in supporting walking, sitting, and standing. Next, performance will be assessed on five experienced prosthetic users before proceeding to trials with individuals with a new transtibial amputation. This temporary prosthesis aims to expedite rehabilitation, enabling people to regain mobility and independence more efficiently. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/43034/32865 How To Cite: Gholizadeh H, Baddour N, Dudek N, Lemaire E.D. A new temporary training prosthesis for people with transtibial amputation: A technical note. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2024; Volume 7, Issue 1, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v7i1.43034 Corresponding Author: Hossein Gholizadeh, PhD, CP (Canada)Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.E-Mails: hgholizadeh@uottawa.ca, gholizadeh87@yahoo.comORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5847-7985
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".