Dept of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.
J Sport Rehabil. 2011 Nov;20(4):419-27. doi: 10.1123/jsr.20.4.419.
Individuals using traditional axillary crutches to ambulate expend approximately twice as much energy as individuals who perform able-bodied gait. A relatively novel spring-loaded crutch now being marketed may reduce metabolic energy expenditure during crutch ambulation. This idea, however, had not yet been tested.
To determine whether the novel spring-loaded crutch reduces oxygen consumption during crutch ambulation, relative to traditional-crutch ambulation. A secondary purpose was to evaluate the design for subject-perceived comfort and ease of use.
Within-subject.
Indoor track.
10 able-bodied men and 10 able-bodied women.
The independent variable was crutch design. Each subject ambulated using 3 different crutch designs (traditional, spring-loaded, and modified spring-loaded), in a randomized order.
The primary dependent variable was oxygen consumption. Secondary dependent variables were subject-perceived comfort and ease of use, as rated by the subjects using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Dependent variables were compared among the 3 crutch designs using a 1-way repeated-measures ANOVA (α = .05).
Oxygen consumption during spring-loaded-crutch ambulation (17.88 ± 2.13 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹) was 6.2% greater (P = .015; effect size [ES] = .50) than during traditional axillary-crutch ambulation (16.84 ± 2.08 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹). There was no statistically significant difference (P = .068; ES = -.45) for oxygen consumption between spring-loaded-crutch ambulation and ambulation using the modified crutch (17.03 ± 1.61 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹). Subjects perceived the spring-loaded crutch to be more comfortable (P < .001; ES = .56) than the traditional crutch. There was no difference (P = .159; ES = -.09) between the spring-loaded and traditional crutches for subject-perceived ease of use.
Compared with traditional axillary crutches, the novel spring-loaded crutch may be more comfortable but does not appear to benefit subjects via reduced metabolic energy expenditure.
使用传统腋拐行走的个体比使用健全步态行走的个体消耗的能量大约多两倍。目前市场上销售的一种相对新颖的弹簧加载拐杖可能会减少拐杖行走时的代谢能量消耗。然而，这个想法还没有经过测试。
确定新型弹簧加载拐杖是否会降低拐杖行走时的耗氧量，与传统拐杖行走相比。次要目的是评估设计的舒适性和易用性。
单因素。
室内跑道。
10 名健全男性和 10 名健全女性。
自变量是拐杖设计。每个受试者以随机顺序使用 3 种不同的拐杖设计（传统、弹簧加载和改良弹簧加载）进行行走。
主要因变量是耗氧量。次要因变量是受试者使用 100 毫米视觉模拟量表评定的舒适度和易用性。使用单向重复测量方差分析（α =.05）比较 3 种拐杖设计之间的因变量。
弹簧加载拐杖行走时的耗氧量（17.88 ± 2.13 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹）比传统腋拐行走时的耗氧量（16.84 ± 2.08 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹）高 6.2%（P =.015；效应量 [ES] =.50）。弹簧加载拐杖行走时的耗氧量与使用改良拐杖行走时的耗氧量（17.03 ± 1.61 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹）无统计学差异（P =.068；ES = -.45）。与传统拐杖相比，受试者认为弹簧加载拐杖更舒适（P <.001；ES =.56）。弹簧加载拐杖和传统拐杖在受试者感知的易用性方面没有差异（P =.159；ES = -.09）。
与传统腋拐相比，新型弹簧加载拐杖可能更舒适，但似乎不会通过降低代谢能量消耗使受试者受益。
