OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and resultant shear stresses in trans-tibial amputee case studies. DESIGN: Interface stresses were monitored using custom-designed instrumentation at 13 sites on three subjects with unilateral trans-tibial amputation walking with patellar-tendon-bearing prosthetic limbs. BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested that week-to-week residual limb changes altered interface stresses more than did alterations in prosthetic alignment. No studies investigating effects of changes in cadence or componentry on interface stress distributions nor comparing their influence with week-to-week changes have been conducted previously. METHODS: Five different prosthetic componentry configurations were tested at each of three cadences in four sessions. Data were analysed for the magnitudes and timings of peak pressures and resultant shear stresses as well as corresponding resultant shear angles. RESULTS: None of the three cadences or five componentry configurations consistently induced significantly (P<0.05) higher or lower interface stress magnitudes for all subjects. However, an Aluminium Pylon/SACH Foot combination compared with an AirStance (pneumatic shank)/Seattle LightFoot unit induced later peak interface stress timings as a percentage of stance phase. Higher and more frequent interface stress changes were seen between the weekly sessions than between different cadences or between different componentry configurations. CONCLUSION: The amputees' capabilities to compensate for week-to-week residual limb changes were less than those for intra-session cadence or componentry alterations. RELEVANCE: Results suggest that effective techniques to accommodate week-to-week residual limb fluctuations could have a greater impact on maintaining consistent interface stress distributions than do adjustments in cadence or componentry.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and resultant shear stresses in trans-tibial amputee case studies. DESIGN: Interface stresses were monitored using custom-designed instrumentation at 13 sites on three subjects with unilateral trans-tibial amputation walking with patellar-tendon-bearing prosthetic limbs. BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested that week-to-week residual limb changes altered interface stresses more than did alterations in prosthetic alignment. No studies investigating effects of changes in cadence or componentry on interface stress distributions nor comparing their influence with week-to-week changes have been conducted previously. METHODS: Five different prosthetic componentry configurations were tested at each of three cadences in four sessions. Data were analysed for the magnitudes and timings of peak pressures and resultant shear stresses as well as corresponding resultant shear angles. RESULTS: None of the three cadences or five componentry configurations consistently induced significantly (P<0.05) higher or lower interface stress magnitudes for all subjects. However, an Aluminium Pylon/SACH Foot combination compared with an AirStance (pneumatic shank)/Seattle LightFoot unit induced later peak interface stress timings as a percentage of stance phase. Higher and more frequent interface stress changes were seen between the weekly sessions than between different cadences or between different componentry configurations. CONCLUSION: The amputees' capabilities to compensate for week-to-week residual limb changes were less than those for intra-session cadence or componentry alterations. RELEVANCE: Results suggest that effective techniques to accommodate week-to-week residual limb fluctuations could have a greater impact on maintaining consistent interface stress distributions than do adjustments in cadence or componentry.
Authors: John C Cagle; Per G Reinhall; Kate J Allyn; Jake McLean; Paul Hinrichs; Brian J Hafner; Joan E Sanders Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: John C Cagle; Krittika J D'Silva; Brian J Hafner; Daniel S Harrison; Joan E Sanders Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Sadeeq Ali; Noor Azuan Abu Osman; Nooranida Arifin; Hossein Gholizadeh; Nasrul Anwar Abd Razak; Wan Abu Bakar Wan Abas Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2014-08-11
Authors: Katrina M Henrikson; Ethan J Weathersby; Brian G Larsen; John C Cagle; Jake B McLean; Joan E Sanders Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 3.576