Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Sagittal plane position of the functional joint centre of prosthetic foot-ankle mechanisms
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. Prosthetics and Orthotics. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dep. of Rehabilitation.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0220-6278
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. Prosthetics and Orthotics. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dep. of Rehabilitation.
2010 (English)In: Clinical Biomechanics, ISSN 0268-0033, E-ISSN 1879-1271, Vol. 25, no 7, p. 713-720Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The use of motion analysis techniques in amputee rehabilitation often utilizes kinematic data from the prosthetic limb. A problem with methods currently used is that the joint positions of the prosthetic ankle are assumed to be in the same position as that of an intact ankle. The aim of this study was to identify both traditional anatomical joint centres as well as functional joint centres in a selection of commonly used prosthetic feet. These coordinates were then compared across feet and compared to the contralateral intact ankle joint.

Methods: Six prosthetic feet were !t to a unilateral trans-tibial amputee on two separate occasions. The subject's intact limb was used as a control. Three-dimensional kinematics were collected to determine the sagittal position of the functional joint centre for the feet investigated.

Findings: None of the prosthetic feet had a functional joint centre that was within the 95% CI for that of an intact ankle (both x- and y-coordinate position), nor any of the other prosthetic feet investigated. The repeatability of the method was found to be adequate, with 95% CI of the difference (test–retest) of the prosthetic feet similar to that for the intact ankle and within clinically accepted levels of variability.

Interpretation: The motion of the prosthetic feet tested is clearly different from that of an intact ankle. Kinematic methods that assume ankle constraints based on an intact ankle are subject to systematic error as this does not refect the real motion of the prosthetic foot.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2010. Vol. 25, no 7, p. 713-720
Keywords [en]
Functional joint centre, Artificial-limb, Kinematics, Marker placement
National Category
Orthopaedics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-12186DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.04.005ISI: 000280681100015PubMedID: 20471145Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-77955653848OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-12186DiVA, id: diva2:319910
Available from: 2010-05-20 Created: 2010-05-20 Last updated: 2019-09-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Rusaw, DavidRamstrand, Nerrolyn

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rusaw, DavidRamstrand, Nerrolyn
By organisation
HHJ. Prosthetics and OrthoticsHHJ, Dep. of Rehabilitation
In the same journal
Clinical Biomechanics
Orthopaedics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 448 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf