Effects of extended powered knee prosthesis stance time via visual feedback on gait symmetry of individuals with unilateral amputation: a preliminary study.


Journal

Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 09 2019
Historique:
received: 07 03 2019
accepted: 28 08 2019
entrez: 13 9 2019
pubmed: 13 9 2019
medline: 20 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Establishing gait symmetry is a major aim of amputee rehabilitation and may be more attainable with powered prostheses. Though, based on previous work, we postulate that users transfer a previously-learned motor pattern across devices, limiting the functionality of more advanced prostheses. The objective of this study was to preliminarily investigate the effect of increased stance time via visual feedback on amputees' gait symmetry using powered and passive knee prostheses. Five individuals with transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation walked at their self-selected speed on a treadmill. Visual feedback was used to promote an increase in the amputated-limb stance time. Individuals were fit with a commercially-available powered prosthesis by a certified prosthetist and practiced walking during a prior visit. The same protocol was completed with a passive knee and powered knee prosthesis on separate days. We used repeated-measures, two-way ANOVA (alpha = 0.05) to test for significant effects of the feedback and device factors. Our main outcome measures were stance time asymmetry, peak anterior-posterior ground reaction forces, and peak anterior propulsion asymmetry. Increasing the amputated-limb stance time via visual feedback significantly improved the stance time symmetry (p = 0.012) and peak propulsion symmetry (p = 0.036) of individuals walking with both prostheses. With the powered knee prosthesis, the highest feedback target elicited 36% improvement in stance time symmetry, 22% increase in prosthesis-side peak propulsion, and 47% improvement in peak propulsion symmetry compared to a no feedback condition. The changes with feedback were not different with the passive prosthesis, and the main effects of device/ prosthesis type were not statistically different. However, subject by device interactions were significant, indicating individuals did not respond consistently with each device (e.g. prosthesis-side propulsion remained comparable to or was greater with the powered versus passive prosthesis for different subjects). Overall, prosthesis-side peak propulsion averaged across conditions was 31% greater with the powered prosthesis and peak propulsion asymmetry improved by 48% with the powered prosthesis. Increasing prosthesis-side stance time via visual feedback favorably improved individuals' temporal and propulsive symmetry. The powered prosthesis commonly enabled greater propulsion, but individuals adapted to each device with varying behavior, requiring further investigation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Establishing gait symmetry is a major aim of amputee rehabilitation and may be more attainable with powered prostheses. Though, based on previous work, we postulate that users transfer a previously-learned motor pattern across devices, limiting the functionality of more advanced prostheses. The objective of this study was to preliminarily investigate the effect of increased stance time via visual feedback on amputees' gait symmetry using powered and passive knee prostheses.
METHODS
Five individuals with transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation walked at their self-selected speed on a treadmill. Visual feedback was used to promote an increase in the amputated-limb stance time. Individuals were fit with a commercially-available powered prosthesis by a certified prosthetist and practiced walking during a prior visit. The same protocol was completed with a passive knee and powered knee prosthesis on separate days. We used repeated-measures, two-way ANOVA (alpha = 0.05) to test for significant effects of the feedback and device factors. Our main outcome measures were stance time asymmetry, peak anterior-posterior ground reaction forces, and peak anterior propulsion asymmetry.
RESULTS
Increasing the amputated-limb stance time via visual feedback significantly improved the stance time symmetry (p = 0.012) and peak propulsion symmetry (p = 0.036) of individuals walking with both prostheses. With the powered knee prosthesis, the highest feedback target elicited 36% improvement in stance time symmetry, 22% increase in prosthesis-side peak propulsion, and 47% improvement in peak propulsion symmetry compared to a no feedback condition. The changes with feedback were not different with the passive prosthesis, and the main effects of device/ prosthesis type were not statistically different. However, subject by device interactions were significant, indicating individuals did not respond consistently with each device (e.g. prosthesis-side propulsion remained comparable to or was greater with the powered versus passive prosthesis for different subjects). Overall, prosthesis-side peak propulsion averaged across conditions was 31% greater with the powered prosthesis and peak propulsion asymmetry improved by 48% with the powered prosthesis.
CONCLUSIONS
Increasing prosthesis-side stance time via visual feedback favorably improved individuals' temporal and propulsive symmetry. The powered prosthesis commonly enabled greater propulsion, but individuals adapted to each device with varying behavior, requiring further investigation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31511010
doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0583-z
pii: 10.1186/s12984-019-0583-z
pmc: PMC6737689
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

112

Subventions

Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB024570
Pays : United States

Références

Ann Rheum Dis. 1978 Jun;37(3):252-4
pubmed: 150823
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2018 Apr;25(3):186-193
pubmed: 29457532
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Nov-Dec;43(7):857-70
pubmed: 17436172
J Exp Biol. 2018 Nov 16;221(Pt 22):
pubmed: 30266784
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Jun;100(6):1068-1075
pubmed: 30391412
Phys Ther. 2011 Sep;91(9):1385-94
pubmed: 21757579
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Jul;97(7):1210-3
pubmed: 26763948
Prosthet Orthot Int. 1996 Aug;20(2):101-10
pubmed: 8876003
J Exp Biol. 2002 Dec;205(Pt 23):3717-27
pubmed: 12409498
Gait Posture. 2003 Apr;17(2):142-51
pubmed: 12633775
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Jan 27;15(1):6
pubmed: 29374491
Gait Posture. 2012 Jul;36(3):631-4
pubmed: 22633017
Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 3;7(1):14480
pubmed: 29101394
Hum Mov Sci. 2012 Aug;31(4):907-17
pubmed: 22248566
Gait Posture. 2003 Apr;17(2):106-12
pubmed: 12633769
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(10):1431-42
pubmed: 23516048
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Mar;78(3):330-3
pubmed: 9084360
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000 Aug;24(2):117-25
pubmed: 11061198
Front Neurosci. 2018 Mar 22;12:134
pubmed: 29623025
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Jun;27(5):460-5
pubmed: 22221344
Hum Mov Sci. 2015 Feb;39:212-21
pubmed: 25498289
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Jul;25(7):917-924
pubmed: 28113346
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Aug;76(8):736-43
pubmed: 7632129
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 9;12(2):e0171786
pubmed: 28182797
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(6):831-42
pubmed: 23299255
Front Neurorobot. 2018 Feb 13;12:2
pubmed: 29487520
Clin Rehabil. 1998 Aug;12(4):348-53
pubmed: 9744670
Gait Posture. 2007 Feb;25(2):250-8
pubmed: 16740390
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2010 Feb;21(1):87-110
pubmed: 19951780
Gait Posture. 2012 Mar;35(3):446-51
pubmed: 22153771
Sci Rep. 2014 Dec 03;4:7213
pubmed: 25467389
J Appl Biomech. 2013 Apr;29(2):188-93
pubmed: 22814355
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Feb;99(2):348-354.e1
pubmed: 29100967
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Aug 02;10:87
pubmed: 23914785
IEEE Trans Cybern. 2020 Jun;50(6):2346-2356
pubmed: 30668514
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):361-73
pubmed: 19675988
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jun;88(6):801-6
pubmed: 17532907
J Biomech. 1988;21(5):361-7
pubmed: 3417688
IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2017 Sep;28(9):2215-2220
pubmed: 27416607
Ann Biomed Eng. 2016 May;44(5):1613-24
pubmed: 26407703
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(6):677-700
pubmed: 26560243
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Jun 6;14(1):52
pubmed: 28583196
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Oct;87(10):1334-9
pubmed: 17023242
J Biomech. 2008 Jul 19;41(10):2082-9
pubmed: 18606419
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Mar;86(3):487-93
pubmed: 15759233
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Sep 5;15(Suppl 1):61
pubmed: 30255808
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Feb 22;12:21
pubmed: 25889201
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018 Sep;26(9):1773-1782
pubmed: 30040647
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Dec;94(12):2440-2447
pubmed: 23954560

Auteurs

Andrea Brandt (A)

Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, North Carolina State University, 4402D Engineering Building III, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.

William Riddick (W)

Mission Gait, Richmond, VA, 23228, USA.

Jonathan Stallrich (J)

Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA.

Michael Lewek (M)

Department of Allied Health Sciences, Division of Physical Therapy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.

He Helen Huang (HH)

Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, North Carolina State University, 4402D Engineering Building III, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA. helen-huang@unc.edu.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. helen-huang@unc.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH