{"title":"Obstacle crossing behaviour in transfemoral prosthesis users: The effect of prosthetic componentry","authors":"L.D. Hughes , A.E. Hafesji-Wade , J.L. Levick , M. Bisele , C.T. Barnett","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2025.106649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Functionally advanced prosthetic ankle-foot and knee components have separately been shown to positively affect obstacle crossing in individuals with a transfemoral amputation. It is unknown, however, what effect combining functionally advanced components has on transfemoral prosthesis users' obstacle-crossing strategies. The study aimed to assess how different knee and ankle-foot prosthetic components influence obstacle-crossing strategies in unilateral transfemoral prosthesis users.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Individuals with a unilateral transfemoral amputation (<em>n</em> = 9) crossed an obstacle (30 cm × 10 cm × 8 cm) placed along an 8.3 m walkway. This was completed in four different prosthetic conditions: a combination of two different knee components (microprocessor and non-microprocessor) with one of two ankle-foot components (rigidly or hydraulically articulating ankles). Full-body kinematics were recorded as participants crossed the obstacles.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Obstacle-crossing strategies were not influenced by the prosthetic component combination. Although small changes were observed in kinematics (joint angles and centre of mass movement) and outcomes such as toe clearance and foot placement, these differences were not statistically significant.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>When using different combinations of prosthetic ankle-foot and knee components, lower limb transfemoral prosthesis users make very small changes to movements during obstacle crossing. Obstacle-crossing strategies and outcomes are also not highly influenced by manipulating component use, suggesting relatively high neuromotor flexibility in established unilateral transfemoral prosthesis users when crossing a small obstacle.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50992,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Biomechanics","volume":"129 ","pages":"Article 106649"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","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/S0268003325002220","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
Functionally advanced prosthetic ankle-foot and knee components have separately been shown to positively affect obstacle crossing in individuals with a transfemoral amputation. It is unknown, however, what effect combining functionally advanced components has on transfemoral prosthesis users' obstacle-crossing strategies. The study aimed to assess how different knee and ankle-foot prosthetic components influence obstacle-crossing strategies in unilateral transfemoral prosthesis users.
Methods
Individuals with a unilateral transfemoral amputation (n = 9) crossed an obstacle (30 cm × 10 cm × 8 cm) placed along an 8.3 m walkway. This was completed in four different prosthetic conditions: a combination of two different knee components (microprocessor and non-microprocessor) with one of two ankle-foot components (rigidly or hydraulically articulating ankles). Full-body kinematics were recorded as participants crossed the obstacles.
Findings
Obstacle-crossing strategies were not influenced by the prosthetic component combination. Although small changes were observed in kinematics (joint angles and centre of mass movement) and outcomes such as toe clearance and foot placement, these differences were not statistically significant.
Interpretation
When using different combinations of prosthetic ankle-foot and knee components, lower limb transfemoral prosthesis users make very small changes to movements during obstacle crossing. Obstacle-crossing strategies and outcomes are also not highly influenced by manipulating component use, suggesting relatively high neuromotor flexibility in established unilateral transfemoral prosthesis users when crossing a small obstacle.
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.