Effects of a hydraulic knee joint on energy consumption, gait and patient satisfaction in trans*femoral amputees

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Diz üstü amputelerde hidrolik diz ekleminin enerji tüketimi, yürüyüş ve hasta memnuniyeti üzerine etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma diz üstü amputelerde hidrolik diz ekleminin enerji tüketimi, yürüyüş ve hasta memnuniyeti üzerine olan etkisini incelemek amacıyla planlandı. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmaya, amputasyon nedeni trafik kazası olan, yaş ortalamaları 22.70±9.4 yıl olan, daha önce mekanik diz eklemli, polyester quadrilateral soket ve dinamik ayaklı diz üstü protez kullanan toplam 10 olgu alındı. Olgulara hidrolik diz eklemli, akrilik quadrilateral soket ve dinamik ayaklı diz üstü protez yapıldı. Olgular her iki protezleri ile, Biodex Gait Trainer 2TM ile yürüyüş, 6 dakikalık yürüme testi ile enerji tüketimleri, Nottingham Sağlık Profili ile yaşam kalitesi, Berg denge skalası ile denge ve protez memnuniyet anketi (SATPRO) ile hasta memnuniyeti açısından değerlendirildiler. Sonuçlar: Elde edilen veriler göre olguların hidrolik diz eklemli protezleriyle normale daha yakın yürüdükleri gözlendi (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ampute, Yürüyüş, Enerji metabolizması, Memnuniyet

Kaynakça

1. Nolan L, Lees A. Touch-down and take- off characteristics of the long jump performance of world level above and below-knee amputee athletes. Ergonomics. 2000;43:1637-1650.
2. Nolan L, Lees A. The functional demands on the intact limb during walking for active trans-femoral and trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24:117-125.
3. Van Der Linden ML, Solomonidis SE, Spence WD, et al. A methodology for studying the effects of various types of prosthetic feet on the biomechanics of trans-femoral amputee gait. J Biomech. 1999;32:877-889.
4. Datta D, Howitt J. Conventional versus microchip controlled pneumatic swing phase control for trans- femoral amputees: user verdict. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1998;22:129-135.
5. Hong JH, Mun MS. Relationship between socket pressure and EMG of two muscles in trans-femoral stumps during gait. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:59- 72.
6. Burkett B, Smeathers J, Barker T. Walking and running inter-limb asymmetry for Paralympic trans- femoral amputees, a biomechanical analysis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:36-47.
7. Jensen JS, Raab W. Clinical field-testing of ATLAS prosthetic system for trans-femoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:170-78.
8. Van Der Linden ML, Twiste N, Rithalia SV. The biomechanical effects of the inclusion of a torque absorber on transfemoral amputee gait, a pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26:35-43.

9. Burger H, Kuzelicki J, Marincek CRT. Transition from sitting to standing after trans-femoral amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:139-151.
10. Van de Weg FB, Van der Windt DA. A questionnaire survey of the effect of different interface types on patient satisfaction and perceived problems among trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:231-239.
11. Näder M. Nader HG. Otto Bock Prosthetic Compendium-Lower Limb Prostheses. 3rd revised edition. Berlin: Schiele and Schon; 2002: 75.
12. Yiğiter K, Şener G, Erbahçeci F, et al. A comparison of traditional prosthetic training versus proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation resistive gait training with trans-femoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26:213-217.
13. Whittle MW. Gait Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Butterworth, Heinemann; 1991:130-157.
14. American Thoracic Society. ATS Statement: guidelines for the Six-Minute Walk Test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:111-117.
15. Kucukdeveci AA, Mckenna SP, Kutlay S, et al. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res. 2000;23:31-38.
16. Demet K, Martinet N, Guillemin F, et al. Health related quality of life and related factors in 539 persons with amputation of upper and lower limb. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;6:25:480-486.
17. Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, et al. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:1073– 1080.
18. Şimşek İE. The assessment of health related quality of life and functional health status among unilateral lower limb amputees. Hacettepe University, Health Sciences Institute, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Biomechanics Program. MSc Thesis, Ankara. 2005.
19. Koehler SR, Steven AG, Meier MR. Lower-limb prosthetics–an investigation of shock-absorbing components in persons with unilateral transfemoral amputations. Journal of Proceedings. American Academy of Orthotics and Prosthetics. www.oandp.org/publications/jop/2005/2005-35.asp
20. Blumentritt S, Scherer HW, Wellershaus U, et al. Design principles, biomechanical data and clinical experience with a polycentric knee offering controlled stance phase knee flexion: a preliminary report. J Prost Orthot. 1997;9:18-24.
21. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Marx B. Biomechanical analysis of stair ambulation in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture. 2007;25:267-278.
22. Boonstra AM, Schrama JM, Eisma WH, et al. Gait analysis of transfemoral amputee patients using prostheses with two different knee joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:515-520.
23. Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, et al. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:207-217.
24. Klute GK, Berge JS, Orendurff MS, et al. Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:717-722.
25. Vrieling AH, van Keeken HG, Schoppen T, et al. Obstacle crossing in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture. 2007;31:16-22.
26. Aström I, Stenström A. Effect on gait and socket comfort in unilateral trans-tibial amputees after exchange to a polyurethane concept. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2004;28:28-36.
27. Poljak-Guberina R, Zivković O, Muljacić A, et al. The amputees and quality of life. Coll Antropol. 2005;29:603-609.
28. Rabuffetti M, Recalcati M, Ferrarin M. Trans-femoral amputee gait: socket-pelvis constraints and compensation strategies. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:183-192.