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
Motion-analysis studies of transtibial prosthesis users: a systematic review
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. Prosthetics and Orthotics. Institute for Clinical Sciences, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0220-6278
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. Prosthetics and Orthotics.
2011 (English)In: Prosthetics and orthotics international, ISSN 0309-3646, E-ISSN 1746-1553, Vol. 35, no 1, p. 8-19Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Three-dimensional motion analysis has been used since the beginning of the 1980s to evaluate many aspects of physical function of transtibial amputees. Despite its common use for clinical research, there is large variability in methods of capturing three-dimensional data, description of these methods, reporting of joint kinematics and interpretation of research findings.

Objectives: The aim of the following review is to critically examine the specific methodologies used by researchers when collecting three-dimensional kinematic data on transtibial amputees and to provide an overview of the methods used.

Study design: Systematic review.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature between January 1984 and June 2009 was conducted. A total of 68 papers were identified for review based on the following criteria: experimental research design, collection of three-dimensional kinematic data of lower-extremity joints, and inclusion of transtibial amputees as experimental subjects.

Results: A number of methodological shortcomings were identified in the papers reviewed.

Conclusions: The authors recommend that future studies more appropriately address the product name and number of prosthetic components used; how the position of reflective markers on the prosthesis is defined; presentation of data from both sound and affected sides; and definition of the neutral position of the ankle when reporting kinematic data. Where possible, the authors recommend use of a control group.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 35, no 1, p. 8-19
Keywords [en]
Rehabilitation, kinematics, prosthesis, amputee, gait analysis
National Category
Orthopaedics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-12175DOI: 10.1177/0309364610393060ISI: 000295032700002PubMedID: 21515885Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-79959237621OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-12175DiVA, id: diva2:401222
Available from: 2011-03-01 Created: 2010-05-18 Last updated: 2018-01-12Bibliographically 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 Orthotics
In the same journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
Orthopaedics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 423 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