Prosthetics and orthotics international · 2016
Energy costs and performance of transfemoral amputees and non-amputees during walking and running: A pilot study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mengelkoch Larry J, Kahle Jason T, Highsmith M Jason
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available concerning the effects of prosthetic foot components on energy costs and ambulatory performance for transfemoral amputees.
OBJECTIVES: Compare energy costs (VO2; gait economy) and ambulatory performance (self-selected walking speeds, self-selected running speeds, peak running speeds) differences during walking and running for transfemoral amputees and matched, non-amputee runners.
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures.
METHODS: Transfemoral amputees were accommodated and tested with three prosthetic feet: conventional foot, solid-ankle cushioned heel (SACH); energy storing and return foot, Renegade; and running-specific energy storing and return foot, Nitro.
RESULTS: During walking, VO2 was similar between transfemoral amputees but was increased compared to controls. Self-selected walking speeds were slower for SACH compared to Renegade and Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was decreased and self-selected walking speeds were slower compared to controls. During fixed running speeds, transfemoral amputees ran using Nitro, and VO2 was greater compared to controls. Transfemoral amputees ran at self-selected running speeds using Renegade and Nitro. Self-selected running speeds were slower for Renegade compared to Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was decreased and self-selected running speeds were slower compared to controls. VO2 peak was similar between transfemoral amputees and controls, but controls achieved greater peak running speeds and % grade.
CONCLUSION: Energy costs were greater and ambulatory performance was lower for transfemoral amputees compared to matched, non-amputee controls for all prosthetic foot conditions. Clinical relevance Both types of energy storing and return feet may improve walking performance for transfemoral amputees by providing faster self-selected walking speeds. For transfemoral amputees interested in performing vigorous running (exercise and running competition), clinicians should recommend a running-specific energy storing and return foot.
OBJECTIVES: Compare energy costs (VO2; gait economy) and ambulatory performance (self-selected walking speeds, self-selected running speeds, peak running speeds) differences during walking and running for transfemoral amputees and matched, non-amputee runners.
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures.
METHODS: Transfemoral amputees were accommodated and tested with three prosthetic feet: conventional foot, solid-ankle cushioned heel (SACH); energy storing and return foot, Renegade; and running-specific energy storing and return foot, Nitro.
RESULTS: During walking, VO2 was similar between transfemoral amputees but was increased compared to controls. Self-selected walking speeds were slower for SACH compared to Renegade and Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was decreased and self-selected walking speeds were slower compared to controls. During fixed running speeds, transfemoral amputees ran using Nitro, and VO2 was greater compared to controls. Transfemoral amputees ran at self-selected running speeds using Renegade and Nitro. Self-selected running speeds were slower for Renegade compared to Nitro. For transfemoral amputees, gait economy was decreased and self-selected running speeds were slower compared to controls. VO2 peak was similar between transfemoral amputees and controls, but controls achieved greater peak running speeds and % grade.
CONCLUSION: Energy costs were greater and ambulatory performance was lower for transfemoral amputees compared to matched, non-amputee controls for all prosthetic foot conditions. Clinical relevance Both types of energy storing and return feet may improve walking performance for transfemoral amputees by providing faster self-selected walking speeds. For transfemoral amputees interested in performing vigorous running (exercise and running competition), clinicians should recommend a running-specific energy storing and return foot.