Suppr超能文献

与健康对照组相比,经股假肢使用者的生理成本指数(PCI)和行走表现。

Physiological cost index (PCI) and walking performance in individuals with transfemoral prostheses compared to healthy controls.

作者信息

Hagberg K, Häggström E, Brånemark R

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, Göteborg University and Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.

出版信息

Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Apr 30;29(8):643-9. doi: 10.1080/09638280600902869.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Uncomplicated methods for evaluation of prosthetic walking performance for individuals with lower limb amputations are valuable. The Physiological Cost Index (PCI), the comfortable walking speed (CWS) and self-reported walking distances are three examples of such measures. The aim was to obtain values for these measures for individuals walking with transfemoral prostheses and to compare the results with healthy controls.

METHOD

Individuals with an established transfemoral amputation for reasons other than vascular disease (TFA-group, n = 41, 30 male/11 female, mean age 49, SD 11.5) were compared to age-and gender matched healthy controls (Healthy group, n = 22). PCI was assessed walking in CWS for 5 min and self-reported distances accomplished outdoors was assessed with the Walking Habit Score (0 - 100).

RESULTS

Mean PCI was 0.55 (SD 0.19) in the TFA-group and 0.31 (SD 0.09) in the Healthy group (p < 0.001). The CWS was 62 (SD 12.6) and 90 (SD 12.8) m/min and the Walking Habit Score 48 (SD 19) and 74 (SD 16) score-points respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

By using uncomplicated and inexpensive methods, this study shows that walking with transfemoral prostheses is done with considerably increased energy cost, slower CWS and that limited walking distances outdoors are performed compared to healthy controls.

摘要

目的

对于下肢截肢者而言,评估假肢行走性能的简单方法很有价值。生理成本指数(PCI)、舒适步行速度(CWS)和自我报告的步行距离就是这类测量方法中的三个例子。目的是获取使用经股骨假肢行走的个体的这些测量值,并将结果与健康对照组进行比较。

方法

将因非血管疾病原因接受经股骨截肢的个体(TFA组,n = 41,30名男性/11名女性,平均年龄49岁,标准差11.5)与年龄和性别匹配的健康对照组(健康组,n = 22)进行比较。在以舒适步行速度行走5分钟的过程中评估PCI,并使用步行习惯评分(0 - 100)评估在户外完成的自我报告距离。

结果

TFA组的平均PCI为0.55(标准差0.19),健康组为0.31(标准差0.09)(p < 0.001)。舒适步行速度分别为62(标准差12.6)和90(标准差12.8)米/分钟,步行习惯评分分别为48(标准差19)和74(标准差16)分(p < 0.001)。

结论

通过使用简单且廉价的方法,本研究表明,与健康对照组相比,使用经股骨假肢行走的能量消耗显著增加,舒适步行速度较慢,并且在户外行走的距离有限。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验