Hip power analysis in individuals with transfemoral amputation: A different strategy different from stabilisation during gait stance

Introduction and Objectives Joint moments and joint powers during gait are widely used to determine the effects of rehabilitation programs as well as prosthetic fitting. Following the definition of power (dot product of joint moment and joint angular velocity) it has been previously proposed to analyse the 3D angle between both vectors, αMw. Basically, joint power is maximised when both vectors are parallel and cancelled when both vectors are orthogonal. In other words, αMw < 60° reveals a propulsion configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to positive power) while αMw > 120° reveals a resistance configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to negative power). A stabilisation configuration (less than 50% of the moment contribute to power) corresponds to 60° < αMw < 120°. Previous studies demonstrated that hip joints of able-bodied adults (AB) are mainly in a stabilisation configuration (αMw about 90°) during the stance phase of gait. [1, 2] Individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) need to maximise joint power at the hip while controlling the prosthetic knee during stance. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that TFAs should adopt a strategy that is different from a continuous stabilisation. The objective of this study was to compute joint power and αMw for TFA and to compare them with AB. Methods Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 8 TFAs (7 males and 1 female, 46±10 years old, 1.78±0.08 m 82±13 kg) and 8 ABs (males, 25±3 years old, 1.75±0.04, m 67±6 kg). The joint moments are computed from a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee for TFAs and from a motion analysis system (Motion Analysis, Santa Rosa, USA) and force plates (Bertec, Columbus, USA) for ABs. The TFAs were fitted with an OPRA (Integrum, AB, Gothengurg, Sweden) osseointegrated implant system and their prosthetic designs include pneumatic, hydraulic and microprocessor knees. Previous studies showed that the inverse dynamics computed from the multi-axial transducer is the proper method considering the absorption at the foot and resistance at the knee. Results The peak of positive power at loading response (H1) was earlier and lower for TFA compared to AB. Although the joint power is lower, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals an obvious propulsion configuration (mean αMw about 20°) for TFA compared to a stabilisation configuration (mean αMw about 70°) for AB. The peaks of negative power at midstance (H2) and of positive power at preswing / initial swing (H3) occurred later, lower and longer for TFA compared to AB. Again, the joint powers are lower for TFA but, in this case, αMw is almost comparable (with a time lag), demonstrating a stabilisation (almost a resistance for TFA, mean αMw about 120°) and a propulsion configuration, respectively. The swing phase is not analysed in the present study. Conclusion The analysis of hip joint power may indicate that TFAs demonstrated less propulsion and resistance than ABs during the stance phase of gait. This is true from a quantitative point of view. On the contrary, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals that TFAs have a remarkable propulsion strategy at loading response and almost a resistance strategy at midstance while ABs adopted a stabilisation strategy. The propulsion configuration, with αMw close to 0°, seems to aim at maximising the positive joint power. The configuration close to resistance, with αMw far from 180°, might aim at unlocking the prosthetic knee before swing while minimising the negative power. This analysis of both joint power and 3D angle between the joint moment and the joint angular velocity provides complementary insights into the gait strategies of TFA that can be used to support evidence-based rehabilitation and fitting of prosthetic components.

Can the direct measurement of the load applied on the residuum of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis help to improve the rehabilitation program?

To strive to improve the rehabilitation program of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis based on data from direct measurements of the load applied on the residuum we first of all need to understand the load applied on the fixation. Therefore the load applied on the residuum was first directly measured during standardized activities of daily living such as straight line level walking, ascending and descending stairs and a ramp and walking around a circle. From measuring the load in standardized activities of daily living the load was also measured during different phases of the rehabilitation program such as during walking with walking aids and during load bearing exercises.[1-15] The rehabilitation program for individuals with a transfemoral amputation fitted with an OPRA implant relies on a combination of dynamic and static load bearing exercises.[16-20] This presentation will focus on the study of a set of experimental static load bearing exercises. [1] A group of eleven individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation fitted with an OPRA implant participated in this study. The load on the implant during the static load bearing exercises was measured using a portable system including a commercial transducer embedded in a short pylon, a laptop and a customized software package. This apparatus was previously shown effective in a proof-of-concept study published by Prof. Frossard. [1-9] The analysis of the static load bearing exercises included an analysis of the reliability as well as the loading compliance. The analysis of the loading reliability showed a high reliability between the loading sessions indicating a correct repetition of the LBE by the participants. [1, 5] The analysis of the loading compliance showed a significant lack of axial compliance leading to a systematic underloading of the long axis of the implant during the proposed experimental static LBE.

Direct measurement of inner prosthesis loading during activities of daily living: Proposal for classification of functional outcome

Background The purpose of this presentation is to outline the relevance of the categorization of the load regime data to assess the functional output and usage of the prosthesis of lower limb amputees. The objectives are • To highlight the need for categorisation of activities of daily living • To present a categorization of load regime applied on residuum, • To present some descriptors of the four types of activity that could be detected, • To provide an example the results for a case. Methods The load applied on the osseointegrated fixation of one transfemoral amputee was recorded using a portable kinetic system for 5 hours. The load applied on the residuum was divided in four types of activities corresponding to inactivity, stationary loading, localized locomotion and directional locomotion as detailed in previously publications. Results The periods of directional locomotion, localized locomotion, and stationary loading occurred 44%, 34%, and 22% of recording time and each accounted for 51%, 38%, and 12% of the duration of the periods of activity, respectively. The absolute maximum force during directional locomotion, localized locomotion, and stationary loading was 19%, 15%, and 8% of the body weight on the anteroposterior axis, 20%, 19%, and 12% on the mediolateral axis, and 121%, 106%, and 99% on the long axis. A total of 2,783 gait cycles were recorded. Discussion Approximately 10% more gait cycles and 50% more of the total impulse than conventional analyses were identified. The proposed categorization and apparatus have the potential to complement conventional instruments, particularly for difficult cases.

The good, the bad and the ugly of bone-anchored prostheses: Guideline to assess true clinical outcomes

The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework to determine the true clinical outcomes of bone-anchored prostheses. Scientists, clinicians and policy makers are encouraged to implement their own evaluations relying on the proposed framework using a single database to facilitate reflective practice and, eventually, robust prospective studies.