LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,149
تعداد مقالات10,518
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,416,278
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,292,126
Sheykhi-Dolagh, Roghaye, Saeedi, Hassan, Safaeepour, Zahra, Hajiaghaee, Behnam, Saneii, Seyed Hassan. (1403). Biomechanical Comparison of Novel Adaptive Swing-Phase Control Mechanical Knee Prostheses with 3R60 and 3R15 in Trans-Femoral Amputees. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(4), 397-406. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2111-1431
Roghaye Sheykhi-Dolagh; Hassan Saeedi; Zahra Safaeepour; Behnam Hajiaghaee; Seyed Hassan Saneii. "Biomechanical Comparison of Novel Adaptive Swing-Phase Control Mechanical Knee Prostheses with 3R60 and 3R15 in Trans-Femoral Amputees". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14, 4, 1403, 397-406. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2111-1431
Sheykhi-Dolagh, Roghaye, Saeedi, Hassan, Safaeepour, Zahra, Hajiaghaee, Behnam, Saneii, Seyed Hassan. (1403). 'Biomechanical Comparison of Novel Adaptive Swing-Phase Control Mechanical Knee Prostheses with 3R60 and 3R15 in Trans-Femoral Amputees', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(4), pp. 397-406. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2111-1431
Sheykhi-Dolagh, Roghaye, Saeedi, Hassan, Safaeepour, Zahra, Hajiaghaee, Behnam, Saneii, Seyed Hassan. Biomechanical Comparison of Novel Adaptive Swing-Phase Control Mechanical Knee Prostheses with 3R60 and 3R15 in Trans-Femoral Amputees. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 14(4): 397-406. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2111-1431

Biomechanical Comparison of Novel Adaptive Swing-Phase Control Mechanical Knee Prostheses with 3R60 and 3R15 in Trans-Femoral Amputees

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
دوره 14، شماره 4، آبان 2024، صفحه 397-406    اصل مقاله (825.26 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Research
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2111-1431
نویسندگان
Roghaye Sheykhi-Dolagh1؛ Hassan Saeedi* 1؛ Zahra Safaeepour2؛ Behnam Hajiaghaee1؛ Seyed Hassan Saneii3
1Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2Department of Human Performance and Health, University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA
3Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation Basic Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
چکیده
Background: The knee joint must adapt to the changes in walking speed to stabilize the stance phase and provide fluency in the swing phase.
Objective: This study aimed to report a comparison of the gait patterns of transfemoral amputees using a novel mechanical prosthetic knee that can adapt automatically to different walking speeds with 3R60 and 3R15 knee prostheses.
Material and Methods: In this experimental study, biomechanical data were collected from six unilateral trans-femoral amputees walking with three knee prostheses. Gait data were gathered at slow, normal, and fast walking speeds across a 7-meter walkway using the Vicon motion system.
Results: The results revealed a significant difference in knee angular velocity during the swing phase between prosthetic knees across three walking speeds (P-value=0.002). Prosthetic knee flexion decreased significantly by increasing walking speed for the novel mechanical auto-adaptive prosthetic knee (P-value<0.001). A lower value of hip power during early swing was considered when amputees walked with novel knee prosthesis (P-value<0.00). The intact leg ankle plantar flexion angle or vaulting did not significantly change while walking speed increased in the novel knee prostheses compared to walking with the 3R60 and 3R15 knee prostheses (P-value=0.002 and P-value<0.06, respectively). 
Conclusion: Based on the results, a novel mechanical auto-adaptive knee prosthesis has advantages compared to the other conventional designs for unilateral trans-femoral amputees walking at different speeds.

تازه های تحقیق

Roghaye Sheykhi-Dolagh (PubMed)

Hassan Saeedi (Google Scholar)

کلیدواژه‌ها
Adaptation؛ Amputees؛ Biomechanics؛ Kinematic؛ Gait؛ Prosthesis؛ Trans-femoral؛ Speed؛ Knee Prosthesis
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):422-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005. PubMed PMID: 18295618.
  2. Renzi R, Unwin N, Jubelirer R, Haag L. An international comparison of lower extremity amputation rates. Ann Vasc Surg. 2006;20(3):346-50. doi: 10.1007/s10016-006-9044-9. PubMed PMID: 16779516.
  3. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030. PubMed PMID: 17270519.
  4. Herr H, Wilkenfeld A. User-adaptive control of a magnetorheological prosthetic knee. Industrial Robot. 2003;30(1)42-56. doi: 10.1108/01439910310457706.
  5. Stinus H. Biomechanics and evaluation of the microprocessor-controlled C-Leg exoprosthesis knee joint. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2000;138(3):278-82. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-10149. PubMed PMID: 10929622.
  6. Baimyshev A, Lawson B, Goldfarb M. Design and preliminary assessment of lightweight swing-assist knee prosthesis. In 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); USA: IEEE; 2018.
  7. Doke J, Donelan JM, Kuo AD. Mechanics and energetics of swinging the human leg. J Exp Biol. 2005;208(Pt 3):439-45. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01408. PubMed PMID: 15671332.
  8. Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human gait: normal, elderly and pathological. Canada: Transport Research Laboratory; 1991.
  9. Hahn A, Lang M, Stuckart C. Analysis of clinically important factors on the performance of advanced hydraulic, microprocessor-controlled exo-prosthetic knee joints based on 899 trial fittings. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(45):e5386. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005386. PubMed PMID: 27828871. PMCID: PMC5106077.
  10. Murthy Arelekatti V, Winter AG. Design and preliminary field validation of a fully passive prosthetic knee mechanism for users with transfemoral amputation in India. J Mech Robot. 2018;10(3). doi: 10.1115/1.4039222.
  11. Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Klute GK, McDowell ML, Pecoraro JA, Shofer J, Czerniecki JM. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of transfemoral amputee gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS prosthetic knees. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(7):857-70. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.09.0147. PubMed PMID: 17436172.
  12. Prinsen EC, Nederhand MJ, Sveinsdóttir HS, Prins MR, et al. The influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee across varying walking speeds: A randomized cross-over trial. Gait Posture. 2017;51:254-60. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.11.015. PubMed PMID: 27838569.
  13. Czerniecki JM. Rehabilitation in limb deficiency. 1. Gait and motion analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(3 Suppl):S3-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90236-1. PubMed PMID: 8599543.
  14. Lemaire ED, Fisher FR. Osteoarthritis and elderly amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(10):1094-9. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90084-1. PubMed PMID: 7944914.
  15. Radin EL, Paul IL. Response of joints to impact loading. I. In vitro wear. Arthritis Rheum. 1971;14(3):356-62. doi: 10.1002/art.1780140306. PubMed PMID: 5562019.
  16. Hurwitz DE, Sumner DR, Block JA. Bone density, dynamic joint loading and joint degeneration. A review. Cells Tissues Organs. 2001;169(3):201-9. doi: 10.1159/000047883. PubMed PMID: 11455115.
  17. Sup F, Bohara A, Goldfarb M. Design and Control of a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis. Int J Rob Res. 2008;27(2):263-73. doi: 10.1177/0278364907084588. PubMed PMID: 19898683. PubMed PMCID: PMC2773553.
  18. Lambrecht BG, Kazerooni H. Design of a semi-active knee prosthesis. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Kobe, Japan: IEEE; 2009. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152828.
  19. Cao W, Yu H, Chen W, Meng Q, Chen C. Design and evaluation of a novel microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee. IEEE Access. 2019;7:178553-62. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2957823.
  20. Kent JA, Arelekatti VNM, Petelina NT, Johnson WB, Brinkmann JT, et al. Knee Swing Phase Flexion Resistance Affects Several Key Features of Leg Swing Important to Safe Transfemoral Prosthetic Gait. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:965-73. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3082459. PubMed PMID: 34018934. PubMed PMCID: PMC8223905.
  21. Lenzi T, Hargrove LJ, Sensinger JW. Minimum jerk swing control allows variable cadence in powered transfemoral prostheses. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:2492-5. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944128. PubMed PMID: 25570496.
  22. Mendez J, Hood S, Gunnel A, Lenzi T. Powered knee and ankle prosthesis with indirect volitional swing control enables level-ground walking and crossing over obstacles. Sci Robot. 2020;5(44):eaba6635. doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.aba6635. PubMed PMID: 33022611. PubMed PMCID: PMC8020725.
  23. Awad M, Sek Tee K, Dehghani A, Moser D, Zahedi S. Design of an efficient back-drivable semi-active above knee prosthesis. Field Robot. 2012:35-42. doi: 10.1142/9789814374286_0004.
  24. Smidt GL. Hip motion and related factors in walking. Phys Ther. 1971;51(1):9-22. doi: 10.1093/ptj/51.1.9. PubMed PMID: 5539669.
  25. Hale S. The effect of walking speed on the joint displacement patterns and forces and moments acting on the above-knee amputee prosthetic leg. JPO: J Prosthet Orthot. 1991;3(2):59-78. doi: 10.1097/00008526-199100320-00002.
  26. Yamazaki N, Ohta K, Ohgi Y. Mechanical energy transfer by internal force during the swing phase of running. Procedia Eng. 2012;34:772-7. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.04.132.
  27. Torki AA, Taher MF, Ahmed AS. Design and implementation of a swing phase control system for a prosthetic knee. 2008 Cairo International Biomedical Engineering Conference; Cairo, Egypt: IEEE; 2008. doi: 10.1109/CIBEC.2008.4786085.
  28. Geil MD, Safaeepour Z, Giavedoni B, Coulter CP. Walking kinematics in young children with limb loss using early versus traditional prosthetic knee prescription protocols. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231401. PubMed PMID: 32275734. PubMed PMCID: PMC7147787.
  29. Hansen AH, Childress DS, Miff SC, Gard SA, Mesplay KP. The human ankle during walking: implications for design of biomimetic ankle prostheses. J Biomech. 2004;37(10):1467-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.01.017. PubMed PMID: 15336920.
  30. 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. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000174665.74933.0b. PubMed PMID: 16034225.
  31. Lenzi T, Hargrove L, Sensinger J. Speed-adaptation mechanism: Robotic prostheses can actively regulate joint torque. IEEE Robot Autom Maga. 2014;21(4):94-107. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2014.2360305.
  32. Yokogushi K, Narita H, Uchiyama E, Chiba S, Nosaka T, Yamakoshi K. Biomechanical and clinical evaluation of a newly designed polycentric knee of transfemoral prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(5):675-82. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2003.05.0076. PubMed PMID: 15558397.
  33. Arelekatti VNM. Design of low-cost, fully passive prosthetic knee for persons with transfemoral amputation in India [dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2015.
  34. Kirker S, Keymer S, Talbot J, Lachmann S. An assessment of the intelligent knee prosthesis. Clin Rehab. 1996;10(3):267-73. doi:10.1177/026921559601000314.
  35. Fey NP, Simon AM, Young AJ, Hargrove LJ. Controlling Knee Swing Initiation and Ankle Plantarflexion With an Active Prosthesis on Level and Inclined Surfaces at Variable Walking Speeds. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2014;2:2100412. doi: 10.1109/JTEHM.2014.2343228. PubMed PMID: 27170878. PubMed PMCID: PMC4861549.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 162,912
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 446


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب