@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2008-2630 Iranian Journal of War & Public Health 2016;8(4):189-194
ISSN: 2008-2630 Iranian Journal of War & Public Health 2016;8(4):189-194
Effect of Perceived Good and Poor Fit of PTB Socket on Energy Expenditure in Unilateral Below Knee Amputees
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Original ResearchAuthors
Jahani A. (*)Aminiyan Gh. (1)
Safari M.R (1)
Nabavi H. (2)
Mardani M.R. (1)
(*) Orthotics & Prosthetics Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(1) 1Orthotics & Prosthetics Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(2) Ergonomics Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence
Address: Orthotics and Prosthetics Department, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Koodakyar Street, Student Boulevard, Evin, TehranPhone: +98 (21) 33656818
Fax: +98 (21) 22180010
at.jahani@uswr.ac.ir
Article History
Received: June 25, 2016Accepted: September 14, 2016
ePublished: November 21, 2016
ABSTRACT
Aims
Persons with lower-limb amputations need to achieve more natural gait through more effort, leading to an increase in the energy consumption in them compared to the healthy persons. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the socket fit on gait energy consumption level in persons with lower limb amputations.
Materials & Methods In the semi-experimental study, 9 persons with below knee amputation, referred to Tehran Veterans Foundation Center, were studied in 2015. The subjects were selected via available sampling method. The study was consisted of two steps, including improper fit and proper fit conditions. The socket fitting was assessed by the trinity amputation scale and the socket comfort scale. The level of energy consumption of the subjects was measured by the physiological cost index. Data was analyzed by SPSS 19 software using paired T test.
Findings Mean values of persons’ gait speed (p=0.001) and the physiological cost index (p=0.019) with improper fit and proper fit were significantly different. Nevertheless, the difference between gait heart beat and resting heart beat at two steps was not significant (p=0.093).
Conclusion Lower energy consumption can be achieved in persons with lower-limb amputations through the utilization of a proper fit, leading to a better gait.
Materials & Methods In the semi-experimental study, 9 persons with below knee amputation, referred to Tehran Veterans Foundation Center, were studied in 2015. The subjects were selected via available sampling method. The study was consisted of two steps, including improper fit and proper fit conditions. The socket fitting was assessed by the trinity amputation scale and the socket comfort scale. The level of energy consumption of the subjects was measured by the physiological cost index. Data was analyzed by SPSS 19 software using paired T test.
Findings Mean values of persons’ gait speed (p=0.001) and the physiological cost index (p=0.019) with improper fit and proper fit were significantly different. Nevertheless, the difference between gait heart beat and resting heart beat at two steps was not significant (p=0.093).
Conclusion Lower energy consumption can be achieved in persons with lower-limb amputations through the utilization of a proper fit, leading to a better gait.
CITATION LINKS
[1]Gailey RS, Nash MS, Atchley TA, Zilmer RM, Moline-Little GR, Morris-Cresswell N, et al. The effects of prosthesis mass on metabolic cost of ambulation in non vascular trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21(1):9-16.
[2]Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture. 2002;16(3):255-63.
[3]Fisher SV, Gullickson GJr. Energy cost of ambulation in health and disability: A literature review. PubMed J. 1978;59(3):124-33.
[4]Pagliarulo MA, Waters R, Hislop HJ. Energy cost of walking of below-knee amputees having no vascular disease. Phys Ther. 1979;59(5):538-43.
[5]Hoaglund FT, Jergesen HE, Wilson L, Lamoreux LW, Roberts R. Evaluation of problems and needs of veteran lower-limb amputees in the San Francisco Bay Area during the period 1977-1980. J Rehabil R D. 1983;20(1):57-71.
[6]Mak AF, Zhang M, Boone DA. State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: A review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38(2):161-74.
[7]Highsmith JT, Highsmith MJ. Common skin pathology in LE prosthesis users. JAAPA. 2007;20(11):33-6.
[8]Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, Ajax MJ, Boone DA, Larsen JA, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36(3):155-63.
[9]Meier RH 3rd, Meeks ED Jr, Herman RM. Stump-socket fit of below-knee prostheses: comparison of three methods of measurement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1973;54(12):553-8.
[10]Levy SW. Skin problems of the leg amputee. Prosthet Orthot Inter. 2009;4(1):37-44.
[11]Foort J. The Patellar-Tendon-Bearing Prosthesis for Below-Knee Amputees, a Review of Technique and Criteria. Artific Limb. 1965;13(1):4-13.
[12]Hanspal RS, Fisher K, Nieveen R. Prosthetic socket fit comfort score. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(22):1278-80
[13]Gallagher P, Franchignoni F, Giordano A, MacLachlan M. Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: A psychometric assessment using classical test theory and rasch analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(6):487-96.
[14]Mazaheri M, Fardipour S, Salavati M, Hadadi M, Negahban H, Bahramizadeh M, et al. The Persian version of Trinity Amputation and Prosthetics Experience Scale: Translation, factor structure, reliability and validity. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(19-20):1737-45.
[15]Crouter SE, Albright C, Bassett DR Jr. Accuracy of polar S410 heart rate monitor to estimate energy cost of exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(8):1433-9.
[16]Bailey MJ, Ratcliffe CM. Reliability of physiological cost index measurements in walking normal subjects using steady-state, non-steady-state and post-exercise heart rate recording. Physiotherapy. 1995;81(10):618-23.
[17]- Boonstra AM, Fidler V, Eisma WH. Walking speed of normal subjects and amputees: Aspects of validity of gait analysis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(2):78-82.
[18]Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20-79 years: Reference values and determinants. Age Ageing. 1997;26(1):15-9.
[19]Sunnerhagen KS, Hedberg M, Henning GB, Cider A, Svantesson U. Muscle performance in an urban population sample of 40- to 79-year-old men and women. Scand J Rehabil Med. 2000;32(4):159-67.
[20]Gailey RS, Wenger MA, Raya M, Kirk N, Erbs K, Spyropoulos P, et al. Energy expenditure of trans-tibial amputees during ambulation at self-selected pace. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18(2):84-91.
[21]Traballesi M, Porcacchia P, Averna T, Brunelli S. Energy cost of walking measurements in subjects with lower limb amputations: a comparison study between floor and treadmill test. Gait Posture. 2008;27(1):70-5.
[22]Peebles KC, Woodman-Aldridge AD, Skinner MA. The physiological cost index in elderly subjects during treadmill and floor walking. New Zealand J Physiotherapy. 2003;31(1):11-6.
[23]Herbert LM, Engsberg JR, Tedford KG, Grimston SK. A comparison of oxygen consumption during walking between children with and without below-knee amputations. Phys Ther. 1994;74(10):943-50.
[24]Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture. 1999;9(3):207-31.
[25]Engsberg JR, Sprouse SW, Uhrich ML, Ziegler BR, Luitjohan FD. Comparison of rectified and unrectified sockets for transtibial amputees. J Prosthet Orthot. 2008;18(1):1-7.
[2]Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture. 2002;16(3):255-63.
[3]Fisher SV, Gullickson GJr. Energy cost of ambulation in health and disability: A literature review. PubMed J. 1978;59(3):124-33.
[4]Pagliarulo MA, Waters R, Hislop HJ. Energy cost of walking of below-knee amputees having no vascular disease. Phys Ther. 1979;59(5):538-43.
[5]Hoaglund FT, Jergesen HE, Wilson L, Lamoreux LW, Roberts R. Evaluation of problems and needs of veteran lower-limb amputees in the San Francisco Bay Area during the period 1977-1980. J Rehabil R D. 1983;20(1):57-71.
[6]Mak AF, Zhang M, Boone DA. State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: A review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38(2):161-74.
[7]Highsmith JT, Highsmith MJ. Common skin pathology in LE prosthesis users. JAAPA. 2007;20(11):33-6.
[8]Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, Ajax MJ, Boone DA, Larsen JA, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36(3):155-63.
[9]Meier RH 3rd, Meeks ED Jr, Herman RM. Stump-socket fit of below-knee prostheses: comparison of three methods of measurement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1973;54(12):553-8.
[10]Levy SW. Skin problems of the leg amputee. Prosthet Orthot Inter. 2009;4(1):37-44.
[11]Foort J. The Patellar-Tendon-Bearing Prosthesis for Below-Knee Amputees, a Review of Technique and Criteria. Artific Limb. 1965;13(1):4-13.
[12]Hanspal RS, Fisher K, Nieveen R. Prosthetic socket fit comfort score. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(22):1278-80
[13]Gallagher P, Franchignoni F, Giordano A, MacLachlan M. Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: A psychometric assessment using classical test theory and rasch analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(6):487-96.
[14]Mazaheri M, Fardipour S, Salavati M, Hadadi M, Negahban H, Bahramizadeh M, et al. The Persian version of Trinity Amputation and Prosthetics Experience Scale: Translation, factor structure, reliability and validity. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(19-20):1737-45.
[15]Crouter SE, Albright C, Bassett DR Jr. Accuracy of polar S410 heart rate monitor to estimate energy cost of exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(8):1433-9.
[16]Bailey MJ, Ratcliffe CM. Reliability of physiological cost index measurements in walking normal subjects using steady-state, non-steady-state and post-exercise heart rate recording. Physiotherapy. 1995;81(10):618-23.
[17]- Boonstra AM, Fidler V, Eisma WH. Walking speed of normal subjects and amputees: Aspects of validity of gait analysis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(2):78-82.
[18]Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20-79 years: Reference values and determinants. Age Ageing. 1997;26(1):15-9.
[19]Sunnerhagen KS, Hedberg M, Henning GB, Cider A, Svantesson U. Muscle performance in an urban population sample of 40- to 79-year-old men and women. Scand J Rehabil Med. 2000;32(4):159-67.
[20]Gailey RS, Wenger MA, Raya M, Kirk N, Erbs K, Spyropoulos P, et al. Energy expenditure of trans-tibial amputees during ambulation at self-selected pace. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18(2):84-91.
[21]Traballesi M, Porcacchia P, Averna T, Brunelli S. Energy cost of walking measurements in subjects with lower limb amputations: a comparison study between floor and treadmill test. Gait Posture. 2008;27(1):70-5.
[22]Peebles KC, Woodman-Aldridge AD, Skinner MA. The physiological cost index in elderly subjects during treadmill and floor walking. New Zealand J Physiotherapy. 2003;31(1):11-6.
[23]Herbert LM, Engsberg JR, Tedford KG, Grimston SK. A comparison of oxygen consumption during walking between children with and without below-knee amputations. Phys Ther. 1994;74(10):943-50.
[24]Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture. 1999;9(3):207-31.
[25]Engsberg JR, Sprouse SW, Uhrich ML, Ziegler BR, Luitjohan FD. Comparison of rectified and unrectified sockets for transtibial amputees. J Prosthet Orthot. 2008;18(1):1-7.