1 / 6

Margrit R. Meier, PhD; Andrew H. Hansen, PhD; Steven A. Gard, PhD; Angus K. McFadyen, PhD

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. Aim

lawrencerichards
Download Presentation

Margrit R. Meier, PhD; Andrew H. Hansen, PhD; Steven A. Gard, PhD; Angus K. McFadyen, PhD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 (90°left 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 didn’t influence results.

  6. Conclusions • Surface compliance adversely affects user’s ability to control some prosthetic knee joints. • C-Leg’s 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.

More Related