TY - JOUR
T1 - Mass and mass distribution of below-knee prostheses
T2 - Effect on gait efficacy and self-selected walking speed
AU - Lehmann, Justus F.
AU - Price, Robert
AU - Okumura, Ramona
AU - Questad, Kent
AU - De Lateur, Barbara J.
AU - Négretot, Alain
N1 - Funding Information:
From the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. Submitted for publication February 6, 1997. Accepted in revised form May 20, 1997. Supported by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), US Department of Education (project no. Hl33G20138). No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated. Reprint requests to Justus F. Lehmann, MD, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Box 356490, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.6490. 0 1998 bv the American Conuess of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy oi Physical Medicine-and Rehabilitation 0003-9993/98/7902-4382$3.00/O
Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 1998/2
Y1 - 1998/2
N2 - Objective: To study mass and mass distribution effect on function of below-knee prostheses. Design: Design modifications were done to produce proximal center of mass location versus distal center of mass location variations, and prosthesis weight was modified from 42% to 70% of normal limb weight. Work across joints of affected and unaffected extremities was compared to assess the ability of the prosthesis to substitute for function loss. Setting: University biomechanics laboratory. Participants: Fifteen volunteers with below-knee amputations, residual limb length greater than 8.3cm, but excluding Syme amputations. Interventions: Patients walked with all configurations at self-selected walking speeds and 120m/min. Main Outcome Measures: Self-selected walking speed and metabolic efficiency. Work across the joints of affected and unaffected sides was compared. Results: Proximal center of mass location produced a more efficient gait. Weight change from 42% to 70% of normal had no significant effect. Mechanical studies show that the prosthesis is a relatively poor substitute for the normal limb; most work is done by the nonamputated side. Particularly, the prosthesis failed to produce effective forward impulses on the body, resulting from push-off and deceleration of the swing leg. Conclusions: For a proximal center of mass, lightweight distal components (eg, feet) should be used; it is questionable whether further expenditure to develop ultralightweight prostheses would be cost effective for level walking.
AB - Objective: To study mass and mass distribution effect on function of below-knee prostheses. Design: Design modifications were done to produce proximal center of mass location versus distal center of mass location variations, and prosthesis weight was modified from 42% to 70% of normal limb weight. Work across joints of affected and unaffected extremities was compared to assess the ability of the prosthesis to substitute for function loss. Setting: University biomechanics laboratory. Participants: Fifteen volunteers with below-knee amputations, residual limb length greater than 8.3cm, but excluding Syme amputations. Interventions: Patients walked with all configurations at self-selected walking speeds and 120m/min. Main Outcome Measures: Self-selected walking speed and metabolic efficiency. Work across the joints of affected and unaffected sides was compared. Results: Proximal center of mass location produced a more efficient gait. Weight change from 42% to 70% of normal had no significant effect. Mechanical studies show that the prosthesis is a relatively poor substitute for the normal limb; most work is done by the nonamputated side. Particularly, the prosthesis failed to produce effective forward impulses on the body, resulting from push-off and deceleration of the swing leg. Conclusions: For a proximal center of mass, lightweight distal components (eg, feet) should be used; it is questionable whether further expenditure to develop ultralightweight prostheses would be cost effective for level walking.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031882333&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031882333&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90293-3
DO - 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90293-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 9473997
AN - SCOPUS:0031882333
SN - 0003-9993
VL - 79
SP - 162
EP - 168
JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
IS - 2
ER -