Obstacle course: Users - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 6
About This Presentation
Title:

Obstacle course: Users

Description:

Users maneuverability and movement efficiency when using Otto Bock C-Leg, Otto Bock 3R60, and CaTech SNS prosthetic knee joints Margrit R. Meier, PhD; Andrew H ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:35
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 7
Provided by: rehabRese
Category:
Tags: course | obstacle | users

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Obstacle course: Users


1
Obstacle course Users maneuverability and
movement efficiency when using Otto Bock C-Leg,
Otto Bock 3R60, and CaTech SNS prosthetic knee
joints
  • Margrit R. Meier, PhD Andrew H. Hansen, PhD
    Steven A. Gard, PhD Angus K. McFadyen, PhD

2
  • Aim
  • Evaluate maneuverability and movement efficiency
    of transfemoral prosthesis users traversing
    obstacle course with defined surface
    characteristics while wearing 3 different
    prosthetic knee joints
  • C-Leg, CaTech SNS, and 3R60.
  • Relevance
  • Studying maneuverability on nonlevel surfaces
  • Is important to many daily activities.
  • Can add to understanding of possible interactions
    between walking surfaces and performance
    characteristics of different prosthetic
    components.

3
Methods
  • 12 users completed multisectional obstacle course
    with each joint (C-Leg, SNS, and 3R60).
  • Performed twice once without and once with
    mental loading task (MLT).
  • 1-month familiarization period with each knee
    joint before data collection.
  • Performance was objectively assessed.
  • Time measurement digital video recordings.
  • Movement efficiency Total Heart Beat Index.

4
Obstacle Course
Overview of obstacle course (OC) setup within
laboratory. Foam section (1 m wide, 3 m long, 15
cm high), slalom section around three chairs,
vacuumized beanbags to mimic sand (1 m wide, 3 m
long), rock section (1 m wide, 3 m long), ramp
(1.4 m wide, 1.5 m long, 5 downward slope),
corner (90left turn) and step (12 cm high).
Two video cameras were set up such that entire
OC could be filmed, allowing time measurements
for each section.
5
Results
  • Time to complete course
  • Longer with 3R60.
  • No significant difference
  • C-leg and SNS.
  • Significant difference only
  • 3R60 and SNS (slalom, rock sections).
  • 3R60 and C-Leg (rock section).
  • Falls in simulated sand
  • 2 users with C-Leg.
  • 1 users with 3R60.
  • 0 users with SNS.
  • Movement efficiency
  • Without MLT Similar for all joints.
  • With MLT Significant decrease with C-Leg.
  • Previous SNS experience didnt influence results.

6
Conclusions
  • Surface compliance adversely affects users
    ability to control some prosthetic knee joints.
  • C-Legs reduced movement efficiency with mental
    loading task has clinical relevance.
  • Many daily tasks are performed in parallel.
  • Such task might fatigue person more while wearing
    C-Leg than 3R60 or SNS knee.
  • Additional studies are required to
  • Understand users psychological influence on
    perception and performance while walking on
    different terrains.
  • Identify specific improvements to knee joint
    designs.
  • Develop more effective gait training protocols.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com