PubMed · 5912203
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J R Leighton. Amputee students.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5912203/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To determine physiological energy cost with Blatchford's "Intelligent Prosthesis" (IP) compared to energy cost with a conventional pneumatic swing phase control (PSPC) mechanism. DESIGN: Before-After trial: subjects fitted with IP walked on programmable treadmill at speeds: 6 min slow, 6 min fast, 8 min while speed changed, between slow, normal, and fast, every minute, and 6 min normal. Breath-by-breath analysis of subject's expired air determined average Vo2 (L/min) within each period. Procedure repeated after 1-week interval using PSPC prosthesis. Testing sessions supervised by experienced prosthetist. SETTING: Rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS: Volunteer sample. Three men, unilateral transfemoral traumatic amputee patients, ages 39 to 59 years. Normally used ischial containment socket, Blatchford Endolite Stabilised Stance Flex knee with PSPC and Multiflex foot and ankle. INTERVENTIONS: Fitting, programming, and alignment of IP (own socket) by Bioengineering Unit's resident prosthetist, IP's microprocessor programmed to facilitate five walking speeds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Physiological energy cost (Vo2), of using IP compared to using PSPC mechanism. RESULTS: Two subjects displayed reduced Vo2 of between 5.6% and 9.0% using IP compared to PSPC prosthesis at a pace either faster or slower than their normal pace. Third subject showed no significant change in oxygen consumption despite IP unit being heavier. All subjects displayed reduced Vo2 (averaging 4.1%) using IP for period of variable speed walking. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences were small, they tend to indicate that use of the heavier IP unit lowered the energy cost of walking at speeds other than the amputee's normal pace.
The distribution of mechanical stress at the interface between a residual limb and prosthetic socket is an important design consideration in lower-limb prosthetics. Stresses must be distributed so that the amputee is stable and comfortable, while avoiding trauma to the tissues of the residual limb. Numerical estimation of the stresses at the interface through finite element (FE) modeling can potentially provide researchers and prosthetists with a tool to aid in the design of the prosthetic socket. This review addresses FE modeling of interface stresses in lower-limb external prosthetics. The modeling methodologies adopted by analysts are described. Verification of FE estimates of interface stress against experimental data by different analysts is presented and the likely sources of error discussed. While the performance of the models is encouraging, there are definite limitations to all of them, necessitating further improvements. Parametric analysis of the sensitivity of interface stress to model parameters provides a tool to identify model weaknesses and to suggest possible refinements. Parametric analyses by different analysts are also presented and potential refinements discussed. Finally, directions for future work in prosthetic FE modeling are suggested.
Body composition determines body water content (the fraction body water/body weight). With developing obesity, body weight and body water increase, but body water content decreases. The anthropometric formulas for urea volume (body water) for Kt/V computations in nonamputated peritoneal dialysis subjects reflect this fundamental rule of body composition. However, the use of uncorrected anthropometric formulas in amputees provides body water content estimates inconsistent with the estimates of body composition obtained from nutritional assessment. Corrected estimates of urea volume can be obtained in three steps: (1) The non-amputated weight at the same body composition is computed by dividing the weight at the urea kinetic study (postamputation) by (1-the fractional weight loss from the amputation); (2) body water and body water content at this nonamputated weight are obtained from the appropriate anthropometric formula; (3) at the time of the urea kinetic study, post-amputation, body water is equal to the estimate of body water content obtained from step 2 times the body weight at the urea kinetic study. The corrected estimates of urea volume provide body water content values agreeing with the estimates from nutritional assessment.