Greater external negative mechanical work is accompanied by a greater metabolic cost of walking for socket-suspended versus bone-anchored prosthesis users with transfemoral limb loss
Gauri A. Desai , John R. Pope , Chioma Ezeajughi , Jae Kun Shim , Ross H. Miller
{"title":"Greater external negative mechanical work is accompanied by a greater metabolic cost of walking for socket-suspended versus bone-anchored prosthesis users with transfemoral limb loss","authors":"Gauri A. Desai , John R. Pope , Chioma Ezeajughi , Jae Kun Shim , Ross H. Miller","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2025.106598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bone-anchored prostheses may address the high metabolic cost of walking in transfemoral (i.e., above-knee) amputees if they mitigate the mechanical energy dissipated due to socket use, reflecting a lower metabolic cost of walking than socket-suspended prosthesis users. Therefore, we compared external mechanical work between socket-suspended and bone-anchored transfemoral prosthesis users during walking and identified if these differences are accompanied by those in their metabolic costs of walking. We hypothesized that socket users would perform more net and negative external mechanical work in their prosthetic limb over the gait cycle and exhibit a higher metabolic cost of walking than bone-anchored prosthesis users.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>High-functioning (Medicare K-level ≥ 3, no dysvascular limb loss) transfemoral amputees with a socket-suspended or bone-anchored prosthesis were recruited (<em>N</em> = 12 per group). Participants walked at 1.0 m/s on a treadmill as pulmonary gases were measured for metabolic cost estimates and overground as ground reaction forces were measured to calculate net and negative external mechanical work across the gait cycle. Metabolic cost and prosthetic-limb external mechanical work outcomes were compared between groups using independent samples <em>t</em>-tests (α < 0.05) corrected for multiple comparisons.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Net mechanical work done by the prosthetic limb was not significantly different between groups (<em>p</em> = 0.93, g = 0.64). However, socket users showed greater external negative mechanical work (<em>p</em> = 0.005, g = 1.17), which was accompanied by a 10.13 % greater metabolic cost of walking than bone-anchored prosthesis users (<em>p</em> = 0.03, g = 0.54).</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>Bone-anchored prostheses may address the high metabolic costs of transfemoral amputee walking by mitigating socket-related energy loss.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50992,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Biomechanics","volume":"127 ","pages":"Article 106598"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003325001718","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Bone-anchored prostheses may address the high metabolic cost of walking in transfemoral (i.e., above-knee) amputees if they mitigate the mechanical energy dissipated due to socket use, reflecting a lower metabolic cost of walking than socket-suspended prosthesis users. Therefore, we compared external mechanical work between socket-suspended and bone-anchored transfemoral prosthesis users during walking and identified if these differences are accompanied by those in their metabolic costs of walking. We hypothesized that socket users would perform more net and negative external mechanical work in their prosthetic limb over the gait cycle and exhibit a higher metabolic cost of walking than bone-anchored prosthesis users.
Methods
High-functioning (Medicare K-level ≥ 3, no dysvascular limb loss) transfemoral amputees with a socket-suspended or bone-anchored prosthesis were recruited (N = 12 per group). Participants walked at 1.0 m/s on a treadmill as pulmonary gases were measured for metabolic cost estimates and overground as ground reaction forces were measured to calculate net and negative external mechanical work across the gait cycle. Metabolic cost and prosthetic-limb external mechanical work outcomes were compared between groups using independent samples t-tests (α < 0.05) corrected for multiple comparisons.
Findings
Net mechanical work done by the prosthetic limb was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.93, g = 0.64). However, socket users showed greater external negative mechanical work (p = 0.005, g = 1.17), which was accompanied by a 10.13 % greater metabolic cost of walking than bone-anchored prosthesis users (p = 0.03, g = 0.54).
Interpretation
Bone-anchored prostheses may address the high metabolic costs of transfemoral amputee walking by mitigating socket-related energy loss.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Biomechanics is an international multidisciplinary journal of biomechanics with a focus on medical and clinical applications of new knowledge in the field.
The science of biomechanics helps explain the causes of cell, tissue, organ and body system disorders, and supports clinicians in the diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of treatment methods and technologies. Clinical Biomechanics aims to strengthen the links between laboratory and clinic by publishing cutting-edge biomechanics research which helps to explain the causes of injury and disease, and which provides evidence contributing to improved clinical management.
A rigorous peer review system is employed and every attempt is made to process and publish top-quality papers promptly.
Clinical Biomechanics explores all facets of body system, organ, tissue and cell biomechanics, with an emphasis on medical and clinical applications of the basic science aspects. The role of basic science is therefore recognized in a medical or clinical context. The readership of the journal closely reflects its multi-disciplinary contents, being a balance of scientists, engineers and clinicians.
The contents are in the form of research papers, brief reports, review papers and correspondence, whilst special interest issues and supplements are published from time to time.
Disciplines covered include biomechanics and mechanobiology at all scales, bioengineering and use of tissue engineering and biomaterials for clinical applications, biophysics, as well as biomechanical aspects of medical robotics, ergonomics, physical and occupational therapeutics and rehabilitation.