Understanding patient preference in prosthetic ankle stiffness
© 2021. The Author(s)..
BACKGROUND: User preference has the potential to facilitate the design, control, and prescription of prostheses, but we do not yet understand which physiological factors drive preference, or if preference is associated with clinical benefits.
METHODS: Subjects with unilateral below-knee amputation walked on a custom variable-stiffness prosthetic ankle and manipulated a dial to determine their preferred prosthetic ankle stiffness at three walking speeds. We evaluated anthropomorphic, metabolic, biomechanical, and performance-based descriptors at stiffness levels surrounding each subject's preferred stiffness.
RESULTS: Subjects preferred lower stiffness values at their self-selected treadmill walking speed, and elected to walk faster overground with ankle stiffness at or above their preferred stiffness. Preferred stiffness maximized the kinematic symmetry between prosthetic and unaffected joints, but was not significantly correlated with body mass or metabolic rate.
CONCLUSION: These results imply that some physiological factors are weighted more heavily when determining preferred stiffness, and that preference may be associated with clinically relevant improvements in gait.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation - 18(2021), 1 vom: 25. Aug., Seite 128 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Clites, Tyler R [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.11.2021 Date Revised 01.11.2023 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12984-021-00916-1 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM32976635X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM32976635X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225205832.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12984-021-00916-1 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1099.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM32976635X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34433472 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Clites, Tyler R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Understanding patient preference in prosthetic ankle stiffness |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 25.11.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 01.11.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2021. The Author(s). | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: User preference has the potential to facilitate the design, control, and prescription of prostheses, but we do not yet understand which physiological factors drive preference, or if preference is associated with clinical benefits | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Subjects with unilateral below-knee amputation walked on a custom variable-stiffness prosthetic ankle and manipulated a dial to determine their preferred prosthetic ankle stiffness at three walking speeds. We evaluated anthropomorphic, metabolic, biomechanical, and performance-based descriptors at stiffness levels surrounding each subject's preferred stiffness | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Subjects preferred lower stiffness values at their self-selected treadmill walking speed, and elected to walk faster overground with ankle stiffness at or above their preferred stiffness. Preferred stiffness maximized the kinematic symmetry between prosthetic and unaffected joints, but was not significantly correlated with body mass or metabolic rate | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: These results imply that some physiological factors are weighted more heavily when determining preferred stiffness, and that preference may be associated with clinically relevant improvements in gait | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shepherd, Max K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ingraham, Kimberly A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wontorcik, Leslie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rouse, Elliott J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation |d 2004 |g 18(2021), 1 vom: 25. Aug., Seite 128 |w (DE-627)NLM153387998 |x 1743-0003 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2021 |g number:1 |g day:25 |g month:08 |g pages:128 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00916-1 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2021 |e 1 |b 25 |c 08 |h 128 | ||