Background
The use of motion analysis techniques in amputee rehabilitation often utilizes kinematic data from the prosthetic limb. A problem with methods currently used is that the joint positions of the prosthetic ankle are assumed to be in the same position as that of an intact ankle. The aim of this study was to identify both traditional anatomical joint centres as well as functional joint centres in a selection of commonly used prosthetic feet. These coordinates were then compared across feet and compared to the contralateral intact ankle joint.Methods
Six prosthetic feet were fit to a unilateral trans-tibial amputee on two separate occasions. The subject's intact limb was used as a control. Three-dimensional kinematics were collected to determine the sagittal position of the functional joint centre for the feet investigated.Findings
None of the prosthetic feet had a functional joint centre that was within the 95% CI for that of an intact ankle (both x- and y-coordinate position), nor any of the other prosthetic feet investigated. The repeatability of the method was found to be adequate, with 95% CI of the difference (test–retest) of the prosthetic feet similar to that for the intact ankle and within clinically accepted levels of variability.Interpretation
The motion of the prosthetic feet tested is clearly different from that of an intact ankle. Kinematic methods that assume ankle constraints based on an intact ankle are subject to systematic error as this does not reflect the real motion of the prosthetic foot. 相似文献Method: Cross-sectional study using the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale and the Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA). Forty-two individuals participated in the study. Twenty-three used a non-microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint (non-MPK) and 19 used a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint (MPK).
Results: The study sample had quite high GSE scores (32/40). GSE scores were significantly correlated to the Q-TFA prosthetic use, mobility and problem scores. High GSE scores were related to higher levels of prosthetic use, mobility, global scores and negatively related to problem score. No significant difference was observed between individuals using a non-MPK versus MPK joints.
Conclusions: Individuals with high self-efficacy used their prosthesis to a higher degree and high self-efficacy was related to higher level of mobility, global scores and fewer problems related to the amputation in individuals who have undergone a lower-limb amputation and were using a non-MPK or MPK knee.
- Implications for rehabilitation
Perceived self-efficacy has has been shown to be related to quality of life, prosthetic mobility and capability as well as social activities in daily life.
Prosthetic rehabilitation is primary focusing on physical improvement rather than psychological interventions.
More attention should be directed towards the relationship between self-efficacy and prosthetic related outcomes during prosthetic rehabilitation after a lower-limb amputation.