Literature DB >> 28066524

BIOENERGETIC DIFFERENCES DURING WALKING AND RUNNING IN TRANSFEMORAL AMPUTEE RUNNERS USING ARTICULATING AND NON-ARTICULATING KNEE PROSTHESES.

M Jason Highsmith1, Jason T Kahle2, Rebecca M Miro3, Larry J Mengelkoch4.   

Abstract

Transfemoral amputation (TFA) patients require considerably more energy to walk and run than non-amputees. The purpose of this study was to examine potential bioenergetic differences (oxygen uptake (VO2), heart rate (HR), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)) for TFA patients utilizing a conventional running prosthesis with an articulating knee mechanism versus a running prosthesis with a non-articulating knee joint. Four trained TFA runners (n = 4) were accommodated to and tested with both conditions. VO2 and HR were significantly lower (p ≤ 0.05) in five of eight fixed walking and running speeds for the prosthesis with an articulating knee mechanism. TFA demonstrated a trend for lower RPE at six of eight walking speeds using the prosthesis with the articulated knee condition. A trend was observed for self-selected walking speed, self-selected running speed, and maximal speed to be faster for TFA subjects using the prosthesis with the articulated knee condition. Finally, all four TFA participants subjectively preferred running with the prosthesis with the articulated knee condition. These findings suggest that, for trained TFA runners, a running prosthesis with an articulating knee prosthesis reduces ambulatory energy costs and enhances subjective perceptive measures compared to using a non-articulating knee prosthesis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Above-knee amputee; Energy costs; No-knee running prosthesis; Oxygen uptake; Physical therapy; Rehabilitation

Year:  2016        PMID: 28066524      PMCID: PMC5218539          DOI: 10.21300/18.2-3.2016.159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Technol Innov


  7 in total

1.  Issues in outcomes research: an overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials.

Authors:  Minsoo Kang; Brian G Ragan; Jae-Hyeon Park
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2008 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Effect of speed on the energy cost of walking in unilateral traumatic lower limb amputees.

Authors:  Joakim J Genin; Guillaume J Bastien; Bernard Franck; Christine Detrembleur; Patrick A Willems
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Last observation carried forward: a crystal ball?

Authors:  Michael G Kenward; Geert Molenberghs
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.051

4.  Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers.

Authors:  Gordon S Doig; Fiona Simpson
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.425

5.  Energy costs and performance of transfemoral amputees and non-amputees during walking and running: A pilot study.

Authors:  Larry J Mengelkoch; Jason T Kahle; M Jason Highsmith
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 1.895

6.  Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion.

Authors:  G A Borg
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Am Coll Dent       Date:  2014
  7 in total
  2 in total

1.  RETURN TO RUNNING FOLLOWING A KNEE DISARTICULATION AMPUTATION: A CASE REPORT.

Authors:  Angela R Diebal-Lee; Robert S Kuenzi; Christopher A Rábago
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2017-08

2.  Strategies for Gait Retraining in a Collegiate Runner with Transfemoral Amputation: A Case Report.

Authors:  Jillian Santer; Stephanie MacDonald; Katherine Rizzone; Shawn Biehler; Tanya Beiswenger
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2021-06-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.