Effects of different prosthetic feet on the ambulation activities and gait in transtibial amputees

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Diz altı amputelerde Türkiye'de sıklıkla kullanılan protez ayakların yürüyüş ve ambulasyon aktiviteleri üzerine etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, unilateral diz altı amputelerde üç farklı protez ayağın yürüyüş, ampute tarafa ağırlık aktarma, ambulasyon aktiviteleri ve rahatlık hissi üzerine olan etkilerini karşılaştırmak amacı ile planlandı. Gereç ve yöntem: 20 unilateral diz altı ampute SACH, dinamik ve konvansiyonel ayaklar ile yürüyüşün zaman mesafe karakteristikleri, ambulasyon aktiviteleri, protezli tarafta taşınan vücut ağırlık yüzdesi ve rahatlık hissi açısından değerlendirildiler. Sonuçlar: Protez ayaklar arasında ampute ve sağlam taraf adım uzunlukları ve destek yüzeyi açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (p>0.05). Yürüme ahengi ve yürüme hızları açısından SACH-dinamik ve dinamik-konvansiyonel ayaklar arasında anlamlı fark bulundu (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Protez ayak, Amputeler, Yürüyüş, Ambulasyon, Rahatlık hissi

Kaynakça

1. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Marx B. Biomechanical analysis of stair ambulation in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture. 2007;25:267-278.
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;16:255-263.
3. Au S, Berniker M, Herr H. Powered ankle-foot prosthesis to asist level ground and stair-descent gaits. Neural Netw. 2008;21:654-666.
4. Merkur A, Laetitia F, Frank B, et al. Kinematics and kinetics with an adaptive ankle foot system during stair ambulation of transtibial amputees. Gait Posture. 2009;30: 356-363.
5. Bilodeau S, Hébert R, Desrosiers J. Lower limb prosthesis utilisation by elderly amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24:126-132.
6. Hamidreza T, Yashar M, Ahmad RM, et al. Quality of life among veterans with war-related unilateral lower extremity amputation: A long-term survey in a prosthesis center in Iran. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:525-530.
7. May BJ. Amputation and Prosthetics: a case study approach. F.A. Davis Company. Philadelphia, 1996.
8. Blumentritt, S. A new biomechanical method for determination of static prosthetic alignment. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21:107-113.

9. Whittle WM. Gait Analysis: An Introduction. Normal Gait. 4th ed. Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier. 2007;47-100.
10. Gailey RS, Clark CR. Physical Therapy Managements of adult lower limb amputees. In: Bowker JH, Micheal JW, eds. Atlas of Limb Prosthetics: Surgical, Prosthetic and Rehabilitation Principles. St Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1992:569-597.
11. Torburn L, Powers CM, Guiterrez RJ. Energy expenditure during ambulation in dysvascular and traumatic below-knee amputees: a comparison of five prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1995;32:111- 119.
12. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Besstte S et al. Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet Seattle ankle/Lite foot versus SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:853-861.
13. Lemaire ED, Fisher FR, Robertson DGE. Gait patterns of elderly men with trans-tibial amputations. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17:27-37.
14. Isakov E, Keren O, Benjuya N. Trans-tibial amputee gait: time-distance parameters and EMG activity. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24:216-220
15. Kirtley C. Clinical Gait Analysis Theory and Practice. Churchill Livingstone, London. Chapter 1. 2006:15- 37.
16. Skinner HB, Barrack RL. Ankle weighting effect on gait in able-bodied adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990;71:112-115.
17. Jones ME, Bashford GM, Mann JM. Weight bearing and velocity in trans-tibial and trans-femoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21:183-186.
18. Culham EG, Peat M, Newell E. Below-knee amputation: comparison of the effect of the SACH foot and single axis foot on electromyographic patterns during locomotion. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1986;10:15-22.
19. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, et al. Comprehensive analysis of energy storing prosthetic feet: flex foot and Seattle foot versus standart SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:1225-1231.
20. Waters RL, Lunsford BR, Perry J, et al. Energy speed relationship of walking: standard tables. J Orthop Res. 1988;6:215-222.
21. Macfarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, et al. Gait comparisons for below-knee amputees using a flex- foot versus a conventional prosthetic foot. J Prosthet Orthot. 1991;3:150-161.
22. Sadeghi H, Allard P, Duhaime PM. Muscle power compensatory mechanisms in below-knee amputee gait. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80:25-32.
23. Colborne GR, Naumann S, Longmuir PE, et al. Analysis of mechanical and metabolic factors in the gait of congenital below-knee amputees: a comparison of the SACH and Seattle feet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.1992;71:272-278.
24. Torburn L, Schweiger GP, Perry J, et al. Below-knee amputee gait in stair ambulation. A comparison of stride characteristics using five different prosthetic feet. Clin Ortop Relat Res. 1994;303:185-192.