MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131298035 · doi:10.1097/jpo.0000000000000590

Changes in the Biomechanical Gait Characteristics of a Bilateral Prosthesis User After Unilateral Transfemoral Osseointegration: A 2-Year Case Study

2025· article· en· W7131298035 on OpenAlexaff
Reihaneh Ravari, Justin Lewicke, Albert H. Vette, Jacqueline S. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsTrunkGaitPelvic tiltProsthesisCadenceBiomechanicsAmputation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Osseointegration (OI) surgery provides a direct connection for the use of bone-anchored prostheses (BAPs), which may reduce gait deviations for unilateral transfemoral prosthesis users. However, there are limited data on individuals with bilateral amputation. Objective This case study reports the gait biomechanics and functional mobility over 2 years for a person with left transfemoral and right transtibial amputation who underwent unilateral transfemoral OI. Study Design This is a longitudinal single-case study with repeated measurements. Methods Spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters from a 31-year-old female patient were recorded by a motion analysis system at baseline (socket prosthesis), and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after femoral OI using a BAP. The Questionnaire for Persons with Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and functional mobility tests were completed at all time points. Results Improvements in cadence and velocity were seen at 18 months after OI, but wide step width persisted. There was improved trunk lean at 12 months but no other time points. Pelvic rotation improved but pelvic tilt and obliquity did not. Hip kinematics were closest to normal at 18 months after OI. The Q-TFA improved (baseline 25.0, follow-up 66.7–83.3). The Timed Up and Go times were 11.0 and 7.9 seconds shorter, and L-Test times 18.5 and 10.1 seconds shorter, at 18 and 24 months after OI, respectively. Conclusions Although patient reported measures improved immediately with using a BAP, biomechanical changes were variable and took longer to improve. Spatio-temporal and kinematic changes at 12 months were less favorable but improved at 18 months after OI, indicating the need for extended recovery and long-term rehabilitation. Further research is needed to validate the results across a larger population. Clinical relevance Improved self-reported function with a BAP was noted immediately; however, functional mobility and biomechanical improvements took longer to improve, indicating that longer follow-up may be needed for complex cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and OrthoticsSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207