ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Sharifmoradi   K. (*)
Kamali   M. (1)
Karimi   M.T. (1)






(*) Physical Education & Sport Science Department, Human Sciences Faculty, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran
(1) Orthotics & Prosthetics Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan , Iran

Correspondence

Address: Kilometer 6 of Ghotb-e-Ravandi Boulevard. University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran. Postal Code: 8731753153
Phone: +983155913707
Fax: +983155912543
ksharifmoradi@gmail.com

Article History

Received:  December  26, 2015
Accepted:  May 24, 2016
ePublished:  June 18, 2016

BRIEF TEXT


Using prosthetic makes changes for amputated people in walking [1, 2].

… [3-19]. Some studies have shown that time to reach peak of reaction force of the earth on the healthy leg is less than the prosthetic leg [20], and peak of braking force and the propulsion impulse in prosthetic legs are more than healthy legs [21,24,25]...[22,23,26].

The aim of this study was to analyze the components of earth’s reaction forces in healthy leg and prosthetic leg in the patients with unilateral below the knee amputation while walking.

This study is observatory _ cross-sectional.

The study was done over 10 patients with unilateral below the knee amputation, based on non-probability purposive sampling method from rehabilitation clinics of Isfahan in 2013.

The sample size was considered 15 persons in a group using 1.70 for standard deviation in Lehrer formula [27] , using power 90%, and considering 35% risk of fall that 5 persons of case studies couldn’t complete the tests and failed. Entry requirement for the study involved: being male, amputation below the knee, no history of important surgery or any illness affecting walking skills in the past 6 months, absence of cardiovascular disease, independent walking ability, the use of prosthesis below the knee and the lack of other aids except prosthetic .Exclusion criteria were the Inability to follow the orders and failure to complete the test.

Qualisys motion analysis system (Qalisis Company; Switzerland) consisting seven cameras was used to record different gait phases. Reliability and validity of the Qualisys Motion Analysis System has been studied. Motion Analysis System is a precise system for measuring distance and its error measurement is 0.6 mm at a distance of 3 meters [28] .In case of measuring earth ‘s reaction forces , Kistler force plate by dimensions of 500*600 mm (model AA 9260; Kistler company, Switzerland) was used. This force plate was in the middle of the footstep. Cameras and force plate were (working) at the same time .the company has reported dynamometer‘s precision very high and the errors in the system has been reported less than 1% [29]. A 10-meter-long hiking path along the laboratory was considered that the starting point for walking for case studies was 5 Km distances from the center of force plate. Markers placement protocol on the body was based on the protocol approved by the University of Strathclyde (figure 1) [30]. Data collection frequency for both systems of Qualisys motion analysis and force plate was 120 Hz. The data was filtered with a low pass filter with a frequency of 10 Hz [31]. Kinematic data was recorded using Qualisys software (version 7.2; Qualisys Company, Switzerland). After calibrating the camera and force plate, at first, case studies anthropometric data including weight, height and length of the right and left foot were recorded. One test was taken on case study, in standing position and then the subject was walking in the regular speed through determinate path and without shoes and the markers image while walking were recorded along with force plate data. Each sample was repeating three trial walking and the average of the three trials walk was used for final analysis. Qualisys software was used in case of recording standing and swing phases of the data and extracting of the earth‘s reaction forces during gait cycle. Variables of the study included: The first and second peaks and force earth ‘s reaction vertical valleys, The first and second anterior posterior earth ‘s reaction force peak , internal external earth ‘s reaction force peak, the total hit ,the brakes hit ,the pushing hit , vertical, external and internal hit , load speed and unload speed {figure 2). Data collection frequency for both systems of Qualisys motion analysis and force plate was 120 Hz. The data was filtered with a low pass filter with a frequency of 10 Hz [31]. Kinematic data was recorded using Qualisys software (version 7.2; Qualisys Company, Switzerland). After calibrating the camera and force plate, at first, case studies anthropometric data including weight, height and length of the right and left foot were recorded. One test was taken on case study, in standing position and then the subject was walking in the regular speed through determinate path and without shoes and the markers image while walking were recorded along with force plate data. Each sample was repeating three trial walking and the average of the three trials walk was used for final analysis. Qualisys software was used in case of recording standing and swing phases of the data and extracting of the earth‘s reaction forces during gait cycle. Variables of the study included: The first and second peaks and force earth ‘s reaction vertical valleys, The first and second anterior posterior earth ‘s reaction force peak , internal external earth ‘s reaction force peak, the total hit ,the brakes hit ,the pushing hit , vertical, external and internal hit , load speed and unload speed (figure 2). Shapiro-Wilk normality test was used for normality of data distribution. After ensuring the normal distribution of data, it was analyzed by SPSS 22 software using independent T test.

10 unilateral amputated below the knee persons were participated in the study. The participants mean age in the study was 49.30 ± 3.80 years, their mean weight was 77.50 ±9.90 Kg and their imean height was 173.20 ± 3.40 cm. The causes of injury were Trauma for 9 persons and burning for one person that for 6 persons it was related to the left leg and for 4 cases it was related to the right leg. Modular system with Ottobock single-axis claw was the prostheses that had been used in 5 cases and in each of the other 5 people involved : Pedilini System with Ottobock sachs claw and soft foam socket , modular system with single-axis claw and liner soft socket , modular system with Ottobock sachs claw and Cuff strap , modular system of chinese sachs claw and modular system with sachs claw and cuff strap. The propulsion impulse and vertical impulse showed significant difference between healthy leg and prosthetic leg in the patients with unilateral below the knee amputation. There was no significant difference among other variables including braking impulse, internal-external impulse, and general impulse, between healthy side and prosthetic side. In the prosthetic leg, the propulsion impulse and vertical impulse of the reaction force of the earth were lower than the healthy leg by 5.82N/S,63.25N/S, respectively. There was a significant difference in peak of internal-external force between healthy and prosthetic leg of the patients with unilateral below the knee amputation and in prosthetic side, it was less than healthy leg by 9.46N/s. There was no significant difference between healthy and prosthetic leg in terms of the peaks of braking forces, propulsion forces, and first and second peak and earth valley reaction forces. Although there was no significant differences between the first peak anterior posterior force on healthy side and prosthetic side, the first peak in the anterior posterior force in prosthetic leg was less than healthy leg by 27.05N/S. Time to reach the peak reaction force of the earth and loading speed on both of the healthy and prosthetic sides was significantly different. Speed to peak reaction force of the earth on prosthetic side was more than healthy side by 4.9 N/S. In addition, loading speed on prosthetic leg was less than healthy side by 12.8N/S. There was no significant difference between healthy and prosthetic leg in case of uploading speeds (table 1).

There is a similarity between the results of this study with the results of other studies , which have shown that there is no significant difference between prosthetic leg and healthy leg in case of first and second peak of vertical impulse, and it appears to contradict other studies that has shown there is a significant difference in braking and propulsion impulse earth’s reaction force between healthy leg and prosthetic leg [21,24,25]. Castro et al showed that braking impulse force and posterior force in healthy leg of the patients with unilateral below the knee amputation was significantly more than prosthetic leg that is matching with the present study result… [32]

It is suggested that in future studies more case studies and different walking speed be done.

Of the limitations of this study were the use of only one force plate inside the laboratory, the low number of subjects, the absence of an electromyography to measure the muscle activity of subjects.

Greater propulsive impulse, vertical impulse, and loading force on the healthy leg than the prosthetic leg in the patients with unilateral below the knee amputation shows that there is a greater loading time interval on the healthy leg.

All case studies are appreciated by the authors of the study.

There is no conflict of interest.

Written contest was acquired by case studies of the study.

Deputy of research and technology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences funded this study.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH, editors. Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principle. 3rd edition. Illinois: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons;2004.
[2]Denes Z, Till A. Rehabilitation of patients after hip disarticulation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116(8):498-9.
[3]Sagawa Y, Turcot K, Armand S, Thevenon A, Vuillerme N, Watelain E. Biomechanics and physiological parameters during gait in lower-limb amputees: A systematic review. Gait Posture. 2011;33(4):511-26.
[4]Soares ASOdC, Yamaguti EY, Mochizuki L, Amadio AC, Serrão JC. Biomechanical parameters of gait among transtibial amputees: A review. Sao Paulo Med J. 2009;127(5):302-9.
[5]Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP. A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine. 2002;27(5):E109-20.
[6]Devan H, Carman A, Hendrick P, Hale L, Ribeiro DC. Spinal, pelvic, and hip movement asymmetries in people with lower-limb amputation: Systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(1):1-20.
[7]Seay JF, Van Emmerik RE, Hamill J. Low back pain status affects pelvis-trunk coordination and variability during walking and running. Clin Biomech. 2011;26(6):572-8
[8]Hendershot BD, Wolf EJ. Three-dimensional joint reaction forces and moments at the low back during over-ground walking in persons with unilateral lower-extremity amputation. Clin Biomech. 2014;29(3):235-42.
[9]Molina Rueda F, Alguacil Diego IM, Molero Sánchez A, Carratalá Tejada M, Rivas Montero FM, Miangolarra Page JC. Knee and hip internal moments and upper-body kinematics in the frontal plane in unilateral transtibial amputees. Gait Posture. 2013;37(3):436-9.
[10]Yoder AJ, Petrella AJ, Silverman AK. Trunk-pelvis motion, joint loads, and muscle forces during walking with a transtibial amputation. Gait Posture. 2015;41(3):757-62.
[11]Morgenroth DC, Orendurff MS, Shakir A, Segal A, Shofer J, Czerniecki JM. The relationship between lumbar spine kinematics during gait and low-back pain in transfemoral amputees. AM J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(8):635-43.
[12]Sadeghi H, Allard P, Duhaime PM. Muscle power compensatory mechanisms in below-knee amputee gait. AM J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80(1):25-32.
[13]Silverman AK, Fey NP, Portillo A, Walden JG, Bosker G, Neptune RR. Compensatory mechanisms in below-knee amputee gait in response to increasing steady-state walking speeds. Gait Posture. 2008;28(4):602-9.
[14]Silverman AK, Neptune RR. Three-dimensional knee joint contact forces during walking in unilateral transtibial amputees. J Biomech. 2014;47(11):2556-62.
[15]Hendershot BD, Bazrgari B, Nussbaum MA. Persons with unilateral lower-limb amputation have altered and asymmetric trunk mechanical and neuromuscular behaviors estimated using multidirectional trunk perturbations. J Biomech. 2013;46(11):1907-12.
[16]Kulkarni J, Gaine W, Buckley J, Rankine J, Adams J. Chronic low back pain in traumatic lower limb amputees. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(1):81-6.
[17]Burke M, Roman V, Wright V. Bone and joint changes in lower limb amputees. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37(3):252-4.
[18]Menard MR, McBride ME, Sanderson DJ, Murray DD. Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73(5):451-8.
[19]Mizuno N, Aoyama T, Nakajima A, Kasahara T, Takami K. Functional evaluation by gait analysis of various ankle-foot assemblies used by below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthoti Int. 1992;16(3):174-82.
[20]Barr AE, Siegel KL, Danoff JV, McGarvey CL, Tomasko A, Sable I, et al. Biomechanical comparison of the energy-storing capabilities of SACH and Carbon Copy II prosthetic feet during the stance phase of gait in a person with below-knee amputation. Phys Ther. 1992;72(5):344-54.
[21]Zmitrewicz RJ, Neptune RR, Walden JG, Rogers WE, Bosker GW. The effect of foot and ankle prosthetic components on braking and propulsive impulses during transtibial amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(10):1334-9.
[22]Esposito ER, Whitehead JMA, Wilken JM. Sound limb loading in individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation across a range of walking velocities. Clin Biomech. 2015;30(10):1049-55.
[23]Castro MP, Soares D, Mendes E, Machado L. Plantar pressures and ground reaction forces during walking of individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation. Physic Med Rehabil. 2014;6(8):698-707.
[24]Snyder RD, Powers CM, Fountain C, Perry J. The effect of five prosthetic feet on the gait and loading of the sound limb in dysvascular below-knee amputees. J Rehbil Res Dev. 1995;32(4):309-15.
[25]Arya AP, Lees A, Nerula H, Klenerman L. A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces. Prosthet Orthoti Int. 1995;19(1):37-45.
[26]Prince F, Allard P, Therrien R, McFadyen B. Running gait impulse asymmetries in below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthoti Int. 1992;16(1):19-24.
[27]Kirkwood BR, Sterne JA. Essentials of medical statistics. 2nd edition. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1988.
[28]Richards JG. The measurement of human motion: A comparison of commercially available systems. Hum Mov Sci. 1999;18(5):589-602.
[29]Hall M, Fleming H, Dolan M, Millbank S, Paul J. Static in situ calibration of force plates. J Biomech. 1996; 29(5):659-65.
[30]Papi E, Ugbolue UC, Solomonidis S, Rowe PJ. Comparative study of a newly cluster based method for gait analysis and plug-in gait protocol. Gait Posture. 2014;39(supple 1):S9-10.
[31]Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME, Gainey J, Gorton G, Cochran G. Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait. J Orthop Aed Res. 1989;7(6):849-60.
[32]Levangie PK, Norkin CC. Joint structure and function: A comprehensive analysis. 5th edition. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company; 2011.