Emily S Gardinier1, Brian M Kelly2,3, Jeffrey Wensman3, Deanna H Gates1,4. 1. 1 School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. 2 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. 3 Orthotics and Prosthetics Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. 4 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are changes in level walking performance for people using a powered ankle prosthesis that was tuned by an independent, manufacturer-certified prosthetist in accordance with device recommendations. DESIGN: Intervention study with cross-over design. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 10 individuals with unilateral, transtibial amputation, and 10 age- and gender-matched control participants. INTERVENTIONS: Powered ankle prosthesis (BiOM T2 Ankle System). Main outcome metrics: Metabolic costs of walking, preferred walking speed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in oxygen consumption (2.9% difference; P = 0.606, d = 0.26), cost of transport (~1% difference; P = 0.652, d = 0.23), or preferred walking speed (~1% difference; P = 0.147, d = 0.76) when using the powered ankle compared to unpowered prostheses. Secondary analyses of user characteristics revealed that participants who were classified as having the highest function (K4 on Medicare's 5-point scale from K0 to K4) were significantly more likely to exhibit energy cost savings than those classified as having lower function (K3; P = 0.014, d = 2.36). CONCLUSIONS: Participants did not demonstrate significant improvements in energetics or preferred speed when wearing a clinically tuned powered ankle prosthesis compared to their non-powered prostheses. Prescribers of powered devices should understand that not all users will show an immediate reduction in energy expenditure.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are changes in level walking performance for people using a powered ankle prosthesis that was tuned by an independent, manufacturer-certified prosthetist in accordance with device recommendations. DESIGN: Intervention study with cross-over design. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 10 individuals with unilateral, transtibial amputation, and 10 age- and gender-matched control participants. INTERVENTIONS: Powered ankle prosthesis (BiOM T2 Ankle System). Main outcome metrics: Metabolic costs of walking, preferred walking speed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in oxygen consumption (2.9% difference; P = 0.606, d = 0.26), cost of transport (~1% difference; P = 0.652, d = 0.23), or preferred walking speed (~1% difference; P = 0.147, d = 0.76) when using the powered ankle compared to unpowered prostheses. Secondary analyses of user characteristics revealed that participants who were classified as having the highest function (K4 on Medicare's 5-point scale from K0 to K4) were significantly more likely to exhibit energy cost savings than those classified as having lower function (K3; P = 0.014, d = 2.36). CONCLUSIONS:Participants did not demonstrate significant improvements in energetics or preferred speed when wearing a clinically tuned powered ankle prosthesis compared to their non-powered prostheses. Prescribers of powered devices should understand that not all users will show an immediate reduction in energy expenditure.
Authors: Bretta L Fylstra; I-Chieh Lee; Stephanie Huang; Andrea Brandt; Michael D Lewek; He Helen Huang Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Uzma Tahir; Anthony L Hessel; Eric R Lockwood; John T Tester; Zhixiu Han; Daniel J Rivera; Kaitlyn L Covey; Thomas G Huck; Nicole A Rice; Kiisa C Nishikawa Journal: Front Robot AI Date: 2018-04-11
Authors: Alejandro F Azocar; Luke M Mooney; Jean-François Duval; Ann M Simon; Levi J Hargrove; Elliott J Rouse Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 25.671