Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2024
The Effect of Unequal Crank Arm Lengths and Cycling-Specific Prostheses for Recreational Riders with a Transtibial Amputation.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Allen Stephen P, Diaz Gabriela B, Grabowski Alena M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We determined the effects of shorter affected side (AS) crank arm lengths and cycling with two different prostheses on joint and crank power, asymmetry, and net efficiency.
METHODS: Twelve participants with a TTA rode at 1.5 W·kg -1 with equal (175 mm) and shorter AS crank arms (160, 165, 170 mm) using a daily-use prosthesis and CSP. We used statistical parametric mapping to determine differences in instantaneous joint and crank power between prostheses and linear mixed-effects models to compare average joint and crank power, asymmetry, and net efficiency.
RESULTS: Shorter AS crank arm lengths reduced the magnitude of peak positive ( P ≤ 0.001) and negative ( P < 0.001) crank power on the AS. Use of a CSP increased the magnitude of peak positive knee power ( P < 0.001) and decreased the magnitude of peak negative crank power ( P < 0.001) on the AS compared with a daily-use prosthesis. Shorter AS crank arm lengths while using a CSP reduced average hip joint ( P = 0.014) and hip transfer ( P = 0.025) power asymmetry from 35% to 20% and 118% to 62%, respectively. However, we found no significant differences in AS average joint or crank power, knee joint or crank power asymmetry, or net efficiency.
CONCLUSIONS: Cycling at 1.5 W·kg -1 with unequal crank arm lengths and CSP improves hip joint power and hip transfer power asymmetry but does not alter crank asymmetry or net efficiency for recreational cyclists with a TTA.
METHODS: Twelve participants with a TTA rode at 1.5 W·kg -1 with equal (175 mm) and shorter AS crank arms (160, 165, 170 mm) using a daily-use prosthesis and CSP. We used statistical parametric mapping to determine differences in instantaneous joint and crank power between prostheses and linear mixed-effects models to compare average joint and crank power, asymmetry, and net efficiency.
RESULTS: Shorter AS crank arm lengths reduced the magnitude of peak positive ( P ≤ 0.001) and negative ( P < 0.001) crank power on the AS. Use of a CSP increased the magnitude of peak positive knee power ( P < 0.001) and decreased the magnitude of peak negative crank power ( P < 0.001) on the AS compared with a daily-use prosthesis. Shorter AS crank arm lengths while using a CSP reduced average hip joint ( P = 0.014) and hip transfer ( P = 0.025) power asymmetry from 35% to 20% and 118% to 62%, respectively. However, we found no significant differences in AS average joint or crank power, knee joint or crank power asymmetry, or net efficiency.
CONCLUSIONS: Cycling at 1.5 W·kg -1 with unequal crank arm lengths and CSP improves hip joint power and hip transfer power asymmetry but does not alter crank asymmetry or net efficiency for recreational cyclists with a TTA.