A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using Intelligent Prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control

Clinical Rehabilitation

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 398-403

  Datta, Dipak ^a   Heller, Ben ^b   Howitt, John ^a  

^a NORTHERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL HALLAMSHIRE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DISABLED PERSON; GAIT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEG AMPUTATION; LEG PROSTHESIS; MICROPROCESSOR; OXYGEN CONSUMPTION; TEACHING HOSPITAL; TREADMILL EXERCISE; VIDEORECORDING; WALKING SPEED;

ADULT; AMPUTEES; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; EXERCISE TEST; GAIT; HUMANS; LEG; MICROCOMPUTERS; MIDDLE AGED; OXYGEN CONSUMPTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 19144367393     PISSN: 02692155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr805oa     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Staros A, Rubin G. Prescription considerations in modern above-knee prosthetics. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 1991; 2: 311-24.
2. Isakov E, Susak Z, Becker E. Energy expenditure and cardiac response in above knee amputees While using prostheses with open and locked knee mechanisms. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl 1985; 12: 108-11.
3. Michael JW. Modern prosthetic knee mechanisms. Clin Orthop 1999; 361: 39-47.
4. Whiteside TE, Volatile TB. Mauch SNS. Hydraulic knee units in above-knee amputees. A long term follow-up study. Clin Orthop 1985; 194: 264-68.
5. Buckley JG, Spence WD, Solomonidis SE. The energy cost of walking: comparison of 'Intelligent' Prosthesis with conventional mechanism. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 78: 330-33.
6. Datta D, Howitt J. Conventional versus microchip controlled pneumatic swing-phase control for trans-femoral amputees: user's verdict. Prosthet Orthot Int 1998; 22: 129-35.
7. Heller BW, Datta D, Howitt J. A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for trans-femoral amputees between the intelligent prosthesis and conventionally damped knees. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 518-22.
8. Sienko-Thomas S, Buckon CE, Freeling RP, Aiona MD, Sussman MD. Energy consumption measurement: do the methodological differences impact the data? Gait Posture 1998; 7: 151.
9. Waters RL, Lunsford BR, Perry J, Byrd R. Energy-speed relationship of walking: standard tables. J Orthop Res 1988; 6: 215-22.
10. Kaufman KR, Irby SE, Mathewson JW, Wirta RW, Sutherland DH. Energy-efficient knee-ankle foot orthosis: a case study. J Prosthet Orthot 1996; 8: 79-85.
11. Taylor MB, Clark E, Offord EA, Baxter C. A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level transfemoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs. Prosthet Orthot Int 1996; 20: 116-21.
12. Kirker S, Keymer S, Talbot J, Lachman S. An assessment of the Intelligent Knee prosthesis. Clin Rehabil 1996; 10: 267-73.