Gait energy consumption and gait efficiency with two different models of prosthetics knees: a single case report
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25758/set.424Keywords:
O2 consumption (VO2), Mechanical prosthetic knee, Transfemural amputation, Energy expenditure, Gait efficiencyAbstract
Background – Prosthetic components have a crucial role in the energy efficiency of an amputee’s gait. This is an area of knowledge still in development, where research plays a central role. Objective – The purpose of this case study is to compare the impact on energy consumption of two prosthetic knees, a titanium single-axis constant friction knee joint with internal extension assist, 3R34 (A), and a single-axis pneumatic swing phase control, 3R92 (B). Methodology – The participant was a transtibial amputee, male, with 27 years old, with no other clinical or functional impairments. To measure the energy expenditure a submaximal treadmill (H/P/Cosmos(R) Mercury) exercise stress test combined with a breath-by-breath analysis system (Cosmed Quark PFT Ergo) was used. The same test was applied to both knees, separated by two days. The analyzed variables were O2 consumption (VO2), metabolic equivalent (MET), and gait efficiency (VO2 ratio expected from a healthy individual and the studied individual). A rate of perceived exertion (Borg’s Scale) was used. Results – The results were favorable to knee A (24.2 ml O2/kg/min; 6.9 MET, 43% efficiency) compared with knee B (28.68 ml O2/kg/min; 8.2 MET, 39% efficiency). Conclusion – In this case, a less energy consumption gait corresponds to the prosthesis with knee A. These values may be influenced by the short adaptation period with knee B, so it’s necessary to perform more studies to confirm the previous results and to understand the true impact of the correct adaptation factor to the best prosthetics components for different patients.
Downloads
References
Bard G, Ralston HJ. Measurement of energy expediture during ambulation, with special reference to evaluation of assistive devices. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1959;40:415-20.
Waters RL, Perry J, Antonelli D, Hislop HJ. Energy cost of walking of amputees: the influence of level amputation. J Bone Joint Surg. 1976;58:42-6.
Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, Golden JC, Meier K. Comparison of energy cost and gait efficiency during ambulation in below-knee amputees using different prosthetic feet: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Orthot. 1988;1(1):24-31.
Mattes SJ, Martin PE, Royer TD. Walking symmetry and energy cost in persons with unilateral transtibial amputations: matching prosthetic and intact limb inertial properties. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(5):561-8.
Rietman JS, Postema K, Geertzen JH. Gait analysis in prosthetics: opinions, ideas and conclusions. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26(1):50-7.
Bussmann JB, Schrauwen HJ, Stam HJ. Daily physical activity and heart rate response in people with a unilateral traumatic transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):430-4.
Johansson JL, Sherrill DM, Riley PO, Bonato P, Herr H. A clinical comparison of variable-damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(8):563-75.
Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. 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(2):207-17.
Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, McCrady SK, Padgett DJ, Joyner MJ. Energy expenditure and activity of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(7):1380-5.
Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture. 1999;9(3):207-31.
American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 9th ed. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
Fergason J. Prosthetic feet. In Lusardi MM, Nielsen CC, editors. Orthotics and prosthetics in reahabilitation. New York: Elsevier; 2007. p. 656.
Prosthetics Research Study. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. Seattle-WA: Author; 1998.
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.
Traballesi M, Porcacchia P, Averna T, Brunelli S. Energy cost of walking measurements in subjects with lower limb. Gait Posture. 2008;27(1):70-5.
McArdle WD, Katch FL, KatchVL. Fisiologia do exercício. 5ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2001. Portuguese
Waters RL. Gasto energético. In Análise de marcha: sistemas de análise de marcha. Barueri: Manole; 2005. p. 85-120. Portuguese
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Saúde e Tecnologia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The journal Saúde & Tecnologia offers immediate free access to its content, following the principle that making scientific knowledge available to the public free of charge provides greater worldwide democratization of knowledge.
The journal Saúde & Tecnologia does not charge authors any submission or article processing charges (APC).
All content is licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND license. Authors have the right to: reproduce their work in physical or digital form for personal, professional, or teaching use, but not for commercial use (including the sale of the right to access the article); deposit on their website, that of their institution or in a repository an exact copy in electronic format of the article published by Saúde & Tecnologia, provided that reference is made to its publication in Saúde & Tecnologia and its content (including symbols identifying the journal) is not altered; publish in a book of which they are authors or editors the total or partial content of the manuscript, provided that reference is made to its publication in Saúde & Tecnologia.
