transfemoral amputee
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

83
(FIVE YEARS 15)

H-INDEX

13
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Author(s):  
Chiara Fanciullacci ◽  
Zach McKinney ◽  
Vito Monaco ◽  
Giovanni Milandri ◽  
Angelo Davalli ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Transfemoral amputees experience a complex host of physical, psychological, and social challenges, compounded by the functional limitations of current transfemoral prostheses. However, the specific relationships between human factors and prosthesis design and performance characteristics have not yet been adequately investigated. The present study aims to address this knowledge gap. Methods A comprehensive single-cohort survey of 114 unilateral transfemoral amputees addressed a broad range of demographic and clinical characteristics, functional autonomy, satisfaction and attitudes towards their current prostheses, and design priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis, including the possibility of active assistance from a robotic knee unit. The survey was custom-developed based on several standard questionnaires used to assess motor abilities and autonomy in activities of daily living, prosthesis satisfaction, and quality of life in lower-limb amputees. Survey data were analyzed to compare the experience (including autonomy and satisfaction) and design priorities of users of transfemoral prostheses with versus without microprocessor-controlled knee units (MPKs and NMPKs, respectively), with a subsequent analyses of cross-category correlation, principal component analysis (PCA), cost-sensitivity segmentation, and unsupervised K-means clustering applied within the most cost-sensitive participants, to identify functional groupings of users with respect to their design priorities. Results The cohort featured predominantly younger (< 50 years) traumatic male amputees with respect to the general transfemoral amputee population, with pronounced differences in age distribution and amputation etiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic) between MPK and NMPK groups. These differences were further reflected in user experience, with MPK users reporting significantly greater overall functional autonomy, satisfaction, and sense of prosthesis ownership than those with NMPKs, in conjunction with a decreased incidence of instability and falls. Across all participants, the leading functional priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis were overall stability, adaptability to variable walking velocity, and lifestyle-related functionality, while the highest-prioritized general characteristics were reliability, comfort, and weight, with highly variable prioritization of cost according to reimbursement status. PCA and user clustering analyses revealed the possibility for functionally relevant groupings of prosthesis features and users, based on their differential prioritization of these features—with implications towards prosthesis design tradeoffs. Conclusions This study’s findings support the understanding that when appropriately prescribed according to patient characteristics and needs in the context of a proactive rehabilitation program, advanced transfemoral prostheses promote patient mobility, autonomy, and overall health. Survey data indicate overall stability, modularity, and versatility as key design priorities for the continued development of transfemoral prosthesis technology. Finally, observed associations between prosthesis type, user experience, and attitudes concerning prosthesis ownership suggest both that prosthesis characteristics influence device acceptance and functional outcomes, and that psychosocial factors should be specifically and proactively addressed during the rehabilitation process.


Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 3129
Author(s):  
Emeline Simonetti ◽  
Elena Bergamini ◽  
Giuseppe Vannozzi ◽  
Joseph Bascou ◽  
Hélène Pillet

The analysis of the body center of mass (BCoM) 3D kinematics provides insights on crucial aspects of locomotion, especially in populations with gait impairment such as people with amputation. In this paper, a wearable framework based on the use of different magneto-inertial measurement unit (MIMU) networks is proposed to obtain both BCoM acceleration and velocity. The proposed framework was validated as a proof of concept in one transfemoral amputee against data from force plates (acceleration) and an optoelectronic system (acceleration and velocity). The impact in terms of estimation accuracy when using a sensor network rather than a single MIMU at trunk level was also investigated. The estimated velocity and acceleration reached a strong agreement (ρ > 0.89) and good accuracy compared to reference data (normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) < 13.7%) in the anteroposterior and vertical directions when using three MIMUs on the trunk and both shanks and in all three directions when adding MIMUs on both thighs (ρ > 0.89, NRMSE ≤ 14.0% in the mediolateral direction). Conversely, only the vertical component of the BCoM kinematics was accurately captured when considering a single MIMU. These results suggest that inertial sensor networks may represent a valid alternative to laboratory-based instruments for 3D BCoM kinematics quantification in lower-limb amputees.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Fanciullacci ◽  
Zach McKinney ◽  
Vito Monaco ◽  
Giovanni Milandri ◽  
Angelo Davalli ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND: Transfemoral amputees experience a complex host of physical, psychological, and social challenges, compounded by the functional limitations of current transfemoral prostheses. However, the specific relationships between human factors and prosthesis design and performance characteristics have not yet been adequately investigated. The present study aims to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: A comprehensive single-cohort survey of 114 unilateral transfemoral amputees addressed a broad range of demographic and clinical characteristics, functional autonomy, satisfaction and attitudes towards their current prostheses, and design priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis, including the possibility of active assistance from a robotic knee unit. The survey was custom-developed based on several standard questionnaires used to assess motor abilities and autonomy in activities of daily living, prosthesis satisfaction, and quality of life in lower-limb amputees. Survey data are summarized with descriptive statistics applied separately to users of transfemoral prostheses with versus without microprocessor-controlled knee units (MPKs and NMPKs, respectively). RESULTS: The cohort featured predominantly younger (< 50 yrs.) traumatic male amputees with respect to the general transfemoral amputee population, with pronounced differences in age distribution and amputation etiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic) between MPK and NMPK groups. These differences were further reflected in user experience, with MPK users reporting markedly greater functional autonomy, satisfaction, and sense of prosthesis ownership than those with NMPKs, in conjunction with a decreased incidence of instability and falls. Across all subjects, the leading functional priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis were overall stability, adaptability to variable walking velocity, and lifestyle-related functionality, while the highest-prioritized general characteristics were reliability, comfort, and weight, with highly variable prioritization of cost. CONCLUSIONS: This study’s findings support the understanding that when appropriately prescribed according to patient characteristics and needs, advanced transfemoral prostheses promote patient mobility, autonomy, and overall health. Survey data indicate overall stability, modularity, and versatility as key design priorities for the continued development of transfemoral prosthesis technology. Finally, observed associations between prosthesis type, user experience, and attitudes concerning prosthesis ownership suggest both that prosthesis characteristics influence device acceptance and functional outcomes, and that psychosocial factors should be specifically and proactively addressed during the rehabilitation process.


2020 ◽  
Vol 81 ◽  
pp. 285-286
Author(s):  
E. Proebsting ◽  
B. Altenburg ◽  
M. Bellmann ◽  
T. Schmalz ◽  
K. Krug

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document