Unilateral transtibial prosthesis users load their intact limb more than their prosthetic limb during sit-to-stand, squatting, and lifting.
Activities of daily living
Amputee
Joint pain
Knee osteoarthritis
Overuse injuries
Journal
Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
ISSN: 1879-1271
Titre abrégé: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611877
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
07
04
2023
revised:
26
06
2023
accepted:
03
07
2023
pmc-release:
01
08
2024
medline:
1
9
2023
pubmed:
22
7
2023
entrez:
21
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lower limb prosthesis users exhibit high rates of joint pain and disease, such as osteoarthritis, in their intact limb. Overloading of their intact limb during daily activities may be a contributing factor. Limb loading biomechanics have been extensively studied during walking, but fewer investigations into limb loading during other functional movements exist. The purpose of this study was to characterize the lower limb loading of transtibial prosthesis users during three common daily tasks: sit-to-stand, squatting, and lifting. Eight unilateral transtibial prosthesis users performed sit-to-stand (from three chair heights), squatting, and lifting a 10 kg box. Peak vertical ground reaction forces and peak knee flexion moments were computed for each limb (intact and prosthetic) to characterize limb loading and asymmetry. Ranges of motion of the intact and prosthetic ankles were also quantified. Users had greater peak ground reaction forces and knee flexion moments in their intact limb for all tasks (p < 0.02). On average, the intact limb had 36-48% greater peak ground reaction forces and 168-343% greater peak knee flexion moments compared to the prosthetic limb. The prosthetic ankle provided <10° of ankle range of motion for all tasks, less than half the range of motion provided by the intact ankle. Prosthesis users overloaded their intact limb during all tasks. This asymmetric loading may lead to an accumulation of damage to the intact limb joints, such as the knee, and may contribute to the development of osteoarthritis. Prosthetic design and rehabilitation interventions that promote more symmetric loading should be investigated for these tasks.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Lower limb prosthesis users exhibit high rates of joint pain and disease, such as osteoarthritis, in their intact limb. Overloading of their intact limb during daily activities may be a contributing factor. Limb loading biomechanics have been extensively studied during walking, but fewer investigations into limb loading during other functional movements exist. The purpose of this study was to characterize the lower limb loading of transtibial prosthesis users during three common daily tasks: sit-to-stand, squatting, and lifting.
METHODS
Eight unilateral transtibial prosthesis users performed sit-to-stand (from three chair heights), squatting, and lifting a 10 kg box. Peak vertical ground reaction forces and peak knee flexion moments were computed for each limb (intact and prosthetic) to characterize limb loading and asymmetry. Ranges of motion of the intact and prosthetic ankles were also quantified.
FINDINGS
Users had greater peak ground reaction forces and knee flexion moments in their intact limb for all tasks (p < 0.02). On average, the intact limb had 36-48% greater peak ground reaction forces and 168-343% greater peak knee flexion moments compared to the prosthetic limb. The prosthetic ankle provided <10° of ankle range of motion for all tasks, less than half the range of motion provided by the intact ankle.
INTERPRETATION
Prosthesis users overloaded their intact limb during all tasks. This asymmetric loading may lead to an accumulation of damage to the intact limb joints, such as the knee, and may contribute to the development of osteoarthritis. Prosthetic design and rehabilitation interventions that promote more symmetric loading should be investigated for these tasks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37478554
pii: S0268-0033(23)00172-9
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2023.106041
pmc: PMC10550186
mid: NIHMS1919246
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
106041Subventions
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : T32 EB021937
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Knee. 2023 Mar;41:245-256
pubmed: 36745960
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Oct;75(10):1094-9
pubmed: 7944914
Int J Rehabil Res. 2013 Sep;36(3):275-83
pubmed: 23528389
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Jun;80(6):706-13
pubmed: 10378500
J Rheumatol. 2001 Jan;28(1):169-72
pubmed: 11196520
J Biomech. 2022 Jun;138:111115
pubmed: 35537233
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013 May;8(3):204-12
pubmed: 22779443
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Nov;22(11):1833-9
pubmed: 25211281
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1995 Nov;32(4):309-15
pubmed: 8770795
Gait Posture. 2003 Apr;17(2):142-51
pubmed: 12633775
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Jul;97(7):1100-6
pubmed: 26686876
Mil Med. 2022 Jul 09;:
pubmed: 35803867
J Biomech. 2020 Aug 26;109:109926
pubmed: 32807311
J Biomech. 2013 Oct 18;46(15):2730-5
pubmed: 24016681
J Biomech. 2019 Oct 11;95:109273
pubmed: 31431348
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2017 Aug 1;6(8):269-278
pubmed: 28831330
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):430-4
pubmed: 18295619
PM R. 2012 May;4(5 Suppl):S20-7
pubmed: 22632698
Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Jun;44(13):3236-3244
pubmed: 33280454
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2022 Dec;100:105811
pubmed: 36395552
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2017 May;44:1-6
pubmed: 28273496
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005 Oct;33(4):195-200
pubmed: 16239837
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1989 Feb;21(1):110-4
pubmed: 2927295
Ergonomics. 2011 Jul;54(7):656-64
pubmed: 21770752
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015 Aug;27(4):473-82
pubmed: 25749886
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Jul;23(7):1038-40
pubmed: 25865394
J Biomech. 2007;40 Suppl 1:S11-7
pubmed: 17462659
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Mar;90(3):440-6
pubmed: 19254609
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016 Oct;40(5):582-90
pubmed: 25944625
Gait Posture. 2011 Apr;33(4):511-26
pubmed: 21392998
J Orthop Res. 2002 Jul;20(4):881-6
pubmed: 12168682
J Biomech. 2018 Mar 1;69:1-9
pubmed: 29366560
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992 May;73(5):451-8
pubmed: 1580773
Front Robot AI. 2020 Feb 11;7:13
pubmed: 33501182
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Jul;75(7):825-9
pubmed: 8024435
J Biomech. 2020 Aug 26;109:109941
pubmed: 32807307
Knee. 2007 Jan;14(1):22-8
pubmed: 17092727
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 21;11(1):8594
pubmed: 33883591
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2022 Feb 1;46(1):50-53
pubmed: 34789708
J Am Podiatry Assoc. 1983 Jul;73(7):344-6
pubmed: 6875169
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Dec;(213):34-40
pubmed: 3780104
Gait Posture. 2013 Jul;38(3):397-402
pubmed: 23375018
Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(10):873-83
pubmed: 25090097
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002 Jun;10(2):109-17
pubmed: 12236448
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014 Jun;29(6):664-70
pubmed: 24820134
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Mar;86(3):487-93
pubmed: 15759233
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007 May;54(5):782-93
pubmed: 17518274
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 29;12(12):e0189876
pubmed: 29287067
J Biomech. 2023 Mar;149:111484
pubmed: 36791515
J Pediatr Orthop. 1993 Mar-Apr;13(2):169-73
pubmed: 8459005
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Dec;45(14):3262-3271
pubmed: 28898105
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(1):15-29
pubmed: 18566923
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 May;66(5):1218-27
pubmed: 24470261