Differences in Gait Patterns of Unilateral Transtibial Amputees With Two Types of Energy Storing Prosthetic Feet

To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that eval...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAnnals of rehabilitation medicine Vol. 42; no. 4; pp. 609 - 616
Main Authors Yang, Ja Ryung, Yang, Hee Seung, Ahn, Da Hyun, Ahn, Dong Young, Sim, Woo Sob, Yang, Hea-Eun
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Korea (South) Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 01.08.2018
대한재활의학회
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2234-0645
2234-0653
DOI10.5535/arm.2018.42.4.609

Cover

Abstract To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns. Ten unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed. On a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics. Both energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study.
AbstractList To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns.OBJECTIVETo evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns.Ten unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed.METHODSTen unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed.On a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics.RESULTSOn a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics.Both energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study.CONCLUSIONBoth energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study.
To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns. Ten unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed. On a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics. Both energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study.
Objective To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns. Methods Ten unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed. Results On a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics. Conclusion Both energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study.
Objective To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we conducted a comparative study. Energy storing prosthetic feet for transtibial amputation are increasing in use, but there are few studies that evaluate the effects of the shape of energy storing feet on gait patterns.Methods Ten unilateral transtibial amputees were recruited. Two different shapes of dynamic response feet were applied to each subject either 1C30 Trias or 1C60 Triton. The main differences between the two are a split forefoot and the presence of a heel wedge. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data was obtained through gait analysis. Differences between intact and prosthetic side and differences between the two prosthetics were assessed.Results On a side to side comparison, cadence asymmetry with 1C30 Trias was observed. Ankle plantarflexion at the end of stance and ankle supination at the onset of preswing was smaller with both prosthetic feet compared to the intact side. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no significant differences in a side to side comparison. In a comparison between the two prosthetics, stance and swing ratio and ankle dorsiflexion through mid-stance was closer to normal with 1C60 Triton than 1C30 Trias. Other spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic data showed no statistically significant differences between prosthetics.Conclusion Both energy storing feet implants showed symmetric gait in unilateral transtibial amputees who are functionally independent in daily living. And 1C60 Triton showed closer to normal gait patterns than 1C30 Trias in our study. KCI Citation Count: 0
Author Yang, Ja Ryung
Yang, Hee Seung
Ahn, Da Hyun
Ahn, Dong Young
Sim, Woo Sob
Yang, Hea-Eun
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Ja Ryung
  orcidid: 0000-0003-0581-5041
  surname: Yang
  fullname: Yang, Ja Ryung
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Hee Seung
  orcidid: 0000-0003-2492-7065
  surname: Yang
  fullname: Yang, Hee Seung
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Da Hyun
  orcidid: 0000-0003-0455-0731
  surname: Ahn
  fullname: Ahn, Da Hyun
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Dong Young
  orcidid: 0000-0002-3925-9525
  surname: Ahn
  fullname: Ahn, Dong Young
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Woo Sob
  orcidid: 0000-0002-0760-3918
  surname: Sim
  fullname: Sim, Woo Sob
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Hea-Eun
  orcidid: 0000-0002-4449-7288
  surname: Yang
  fullname: Yang, Hea-Eun
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30180531$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002377321$$DAccess content in National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
BookMark eNp1Uk1vEzEQXaEiWkp_ABfkIxwS_LW79gUpKm2JVIkKUnG0ZndnE7e7drAdUP49TtJWFAlfZmy_9-bzdXHkvMOieMvotCxF-RHCOOWUqankUzmtqH5RnHAu5IRWpTh68mV5XJzFeEfzKSumOXtVHIvMo6VgJ8X6s-17DOhajMQ6cgU2kRtICYOLxPfk1tkB8g0GsgjgYrKNzf5sXG8SZs4Pm1Zk8duTxXaNe8aFw7Dcku_JB-uW5Cb4mFaYbEsuEdOb4mUPQ8SzB3ta3F5eLM6_TK6_Xs3PZ9eTVmqdJooJ1ZUllY2oGs45Y9gpZJ2skSMFCZJ1QlFUCLREkD3ISuoaAdq-qXspTosPB10XenPfWuPB7u3Sm_tgZt8WcyPq3EleZ-z8gO083Jl1sCOE7Z6wf_BhaSDkAgY0qlZ1LZoqZ6NlR7UCpimTDQpA1IJlrU8HrfWmGbFr0aXcu2eiz3-cXeWcfpmKcV0zngXePwgE_3ODMZnRxhaHARz6TTScaq200Ipm6Lu_Yz0FeRxvBtQHQJuHEAP2prUJkvW70HYwjJrdLuXqRrPbJSO5kSbvUmayf5iP4v_n_AG1Xc01
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_3390_sym15081595
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_023_01128_5
crossref_primary_10_1007_s12046_023_02338_2
crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000435
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2019_05_022
crossref_primary_10_1097_PXR_0000000000000124
crossref_primary_10_1177_09544119241295342
crossref_primary_10_3390_app11125591
crossref_primary_10_1098_rsos_221198
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0233593
crossref_primary_10_1109_TNSRE_2023_3316749
Cites_doi 10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.02.004
10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.005
10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.01.003
10.1097/00007611-200295080-00019
10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005
10.1177/0309364612439572
10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.06.007
10.1682/JRRD.1990.10.0369
10.1097/00002060-199210000-00004
10.1016/S0268-0033(02)00020-7
10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.019
10.1155/2015/261801
10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00105-1
10.1097/00002060-199106000-00006
10.1682/JRRD.2014.03.0081
10.1053/apmr.2002.32309
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.07.009
10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.028
10.1016/0021-9290(93)90067-O
10.1177/0269215508088990
10.1053/apmr.2002.34605
10.1016/j.pmr.2013.09.001
10.1177/0309364612473501
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2018 by Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2018
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2018 by Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2018
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
NPM
7X8
5PM
DOA
ACYCR
DOI 10.5535/arm.2018.42.4.609
DatabaseName CrossRef
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
Korean Citation Index
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed


Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Physical Therapy
EISSN 2234-0653
EndPage 616
ExternalDocumentID oai_kci_go_kr_ARTI_3755327
oai_doaj_org_article_878773b6ed894d098a19014be3aee931
PMC6129712
30180531
10_5535_arm_2018_42_4_609
Genre Journal Article
GroupedDBID 5-W
8JR
8XY
AAYXX
ABDBF
ACUHS
ACYCR
ADBBV
ADRAZ
AEGXH
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AOIJS
BAWUL
BCNDV
CITATION
DIK
EF.
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
HYE
KQ8
M48
OK1
PGMZT
RPM
NPM
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-8138d5504b36b22211ed8e1d47e2e0a4a41d380e8ea05ea4fa46497eaacfb7f43
IEDL.DBID DOA
ISSN 2234-0645
IngestDate Tue Nov 21 21:40:13 EST 2023
Wed Aug 27 01:31:20 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 13:40:16 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 11 02:03:33 EDT 2025
Wed Feb 19 02:40:48 EST 2025
Tue Jul 01 01:26:00 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:51:11 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 4
Keywords Gait
Prosthesis
Amputation
Language English
License This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c499t-8138d5504b36b22211ed8e1d47e2e0a4a41d380e8ea05ea4fa46497eaacfb7f43
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0003-0581-5041
0000-0003-2492-7065
0000-0002-3925-9525
0000-0003-0455-0731
0000-0002-0760-3918
0000-0002-4449-7288
OpenAccessLink https://doaj.org/article/878773b6ed894d098a19014be3aee931
PMID 30180531
PQID 2099893980
PQPubID 23479
PageCount 8
ParticipantIDs nrf_kci_oai_kci_go_kr_ARTI_3755327
doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_878773b6ed894d098a19014be3aee931
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6129712
proquest_miscellaneous_2099893980
pubmed_primary_30180531
crossref_citationtrail_10_5535_arm_2018_42_4_609
crossref_primary_10_5535_arm_2018_42_4_609
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2018-08-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2018-08-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 08
  year: 2018
  text: 2018-08-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace Korea (South)
PublicationPlace_xml – name: Korea (South)
PublicationTitle Annals of rehabilitation medicine
PublicationTitleAlternate Ann Rehabil Med
PublicationYear 2018
Publisher Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine
대한재활의학회
Publisher_xml – name: Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine
– name: 대한재활의학회
References ref13
ref12
ref15
ref14
ref11
ref10
Perry (ref23) 2010
ref2
ref17
ref16
ref18
ref24
ref26
ref25
ref20
ref22
ref21
Kim (ref6) 2011
ref28
Braddom (ref1) 2010
ref27
ref7
Ehara (ref8) 1993
ref9
ref4
Hafner (ref19) 2002
ref3
ref5
18514526 - Gait Posture. 2008 Nov;28(4):602-9
22440580 - Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012 Jun;36(2):225-30
11672713 - J Biomech. 2001 Nov;34(11):1387-98
11926321 - J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002 Jan-Feb;39(1):1-11
18955421 - Clin Rehabil. 2008 Oct-Nov;22(10-11):896-901
1388973 - Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992 Oct;71(5):272-8
8420524 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Jan;74(1):68-72
12190225 - South Med J. 2002 Aug;95(8):875-83
18295618 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):422-9
21777999 - Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011 Dec;26(10):1025-32
17532907 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jun;88(6):801-6
12084537 - Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002 Jun;17(5):325-44
24487128 - PM R. 2014 Aug;6(8):698-707.e1
24287235 - Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014 Feb;25(1):1-8
2089148 - J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990 Fall;27(4):369-84
17045595 - J Biomech. 2007;40(8):1824-31
11994800 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 May;83(5):613-27
23364890 - Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Oct;37(5):396-403
28111069 - Med Eng Phys. 2017 Mar;41:90-96
19303796 - J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010 Feb;20(1):155-61
8253824 - J Biomech. 1993 Oct;26(10):1191-204
26078990 - ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:261801
12370874 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Oct;83(10):1389-93
2039616 - Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991 Jun;70(3):142-8
25860285 - J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(10):1579-90
References_xml – ident: ref16
  doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.02.004
– ident: ref17
  doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.005
– ident: ref14
  doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.01.003
– ident: ref3
  doi: 10.1097/00007611-200295080-00019
– ident: ref5
  doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005
– ident: ref22
  doi: 10.1177/0309364612439572
– ident: ref13
  doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.06.007
– start-page: 68
  volume-title: Energy storing property of so-called energy-storing prosthetic feet
  year: 1993
  ident: ref8
– ident: ref27
  doi: 10.1682/JRRD.1990.10.0369
– ident: ref28
  doi: 10.1097/00002060-199210000-00004
– year: 2010
  ident: ref23
– ident: ref9
  doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(02)00020-7
– ident: ref24
  doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.019
– year: 2011
  ident: ref6
– ident: ref7
  doi: 10.1155/2015/261801
– ident: ref18
  doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00105-1
– ident: ref25
  doi: 10.1097/00002060-199106000-00006
– ident: ref12
  doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.03.0081
– ident: ref15
  doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.32309
– ident: ref10
  doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.07.009
– ident: ref21
  doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.028
– ident: ref26
  doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(93)90067-O
– start-page: 1
  volume-title: Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: a review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature
  year: 2002
  ident: ref19
– ident: ref20
  doi: 10.1177/0269215508088990
– ident: ref2
  doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.34605
– year: 2010
  ident: ref1
– ident: ref4
  doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2013.09.001
– ident: ref11
  doi: 10.1177/0309364612473501
– reference: 12084537 - Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002 Jun;17(5):325-44
– reference: 12370874 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Oct;83(10):1389-93
– reference: 2039616 - Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991 Jun;70(3):142-8
– reference: 1388973 - Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992 Oct;71(5):272-8
– reference: 11926321 - J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002 Jan-Feb;39(1):1-11
– reference: 2089148 - J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990 Fall;27(4):369-84
– reference: 21777999 - Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011 Dec;26(10):1025-32
– reference: 25860285 - J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(10):1579-90
– reference: 22440580 - Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012 Jun;36(2):225-30
– reference: 8253824 - J Biomech. 1993 Oct;26(10):1191-204
– reference: 19303796 - J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010 Feb;20(1):155-61
– reference: 26078990 - ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:261801
– reference: 17532907 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jun;88(6):801-6
– reference: 12190225 - South Med J. 2002 Aug;95(8):875-83
– reference: 17045595 - J Biomech. 2007;40(8):1824-31
– reference: 18514526 - Gait Posture. 2008 Nov;28(4):602-9
– reference: 11672713 - J Biomech. 2001 Nov;34(11):1387-98
– reference: 18955421 - Clin Rehabil. 2008 Oct-Nov;22(10-11):896-901
– reference: 18295618 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):422-9
– reference: 8420524 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Jan;74(1):68-72
– reference: 11994800 - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 May;83(5):613-27
– reference: 24287235 - Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014 Feb;25(1):1-8
– reference: 23364890 - Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Oct;37(5):396-403
– reference: 24487128 - PM R. 2014 Aug;6(8):698-707.e1
– reference: 28111069 - Med Eng Phys. 2017 Mar;41:90-96
SSID ssj0000561921
Score 2.1491325
Snippet To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation we...
Objective To evaluate if there is a difference in gait pattern when applying two different shapes of energy storing prosthetic feet for trainstibial amputation...
SourceID nrf
doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage 609
SubjectTerms Amputation
Gait
Original
Prosthesis
재활의학
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: Scholars Portal Journals: Open Access
  dbid: M48
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lj9MwELZWy4UL70eWhwzihJQQx07inNACWxakRZVoxd4su5lso62SJc0K-PfMOGlFUcWJU6Uk0ySeceb7ZM83jL1CvAY6kxD6RUIMEotTCnSoilKUVNzovIDp2ZfsdK4-n6fnB2zT3mocwPVeakf9pObdKvr5_ddbnPCIX6M0lekb21FJudCRSiIVZVTOdwMTU0Zc7GxE-4PUN7EFomCYE1VISm3DOuf-f9nJVF7QH_NP01X7sOjfWyr_yFGTO-zWCC758RANd9kBNPfY7enoCj4bFATus6sPY1sU_EjwuuEfbd3zqVfabNa8rTgi0ZWl2mQ0omQ2FJbwY98BAm2-1f2Sz360nGistzjxNYT8a-839PEpFZMsqUCSTwD6B2w-OZm9Pw3H1gvhAilQH2ohdYnkRTmZOYQQQkCpQZQqhwRiq6wSpdQxaLBxClZVVmWqyMHaReXySsmH7LBpG3jMeIXZwAmLZ8pKJdZpm5HEfmWR-bk8KQMWb4bZLEZdcmqPsTLIT8gzBj1jyDNGJUYZ9EzAXm9NrgZRjn9d_I58t72Q9LT9gba7MOP0NBq_W7l0Gb5locq40JaAknIgLUAhRcBeoufN5aL29vR70ZrLziDr-GRkjrdO8oC92ASGwUlKKy-2gfZ6bag-GYFhoeOAPRoCZfs8kiTUUrpFvhNCOw-8e6apl14IHNFpkYvk6H-84RN2k4Zt2Nv4lB323TU8Q7zVu-d-Fv0GhuInjg
  priority: 102
  providerName: Scholars Portal
Title Differences in Gait Patterns of Unilateral Transtibial Amputees With Two Types of Energy Storing Prosthetic Feet
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30180531
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2099893980
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6129712
https://doaj.org/article/878773b6ed894d098a19014be3aee931
https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002377321
Volume 42
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
ispartofPNX Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2018, 42(4), , pp.609-616
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3db9QwDI_Qnnjh--P4UkA8IfVoGrdNHwfsNpCGTuIm7i1Kri5XbWqnWyf-feykO90hBC-8tFJbN6nt1LZi_yzEW_LX0BQak7BJSEriaEmhSaCqVc3FjT4AmJ5-LU7O4MsyX-60-uKcsAgPHBn33pBGldoXWJsK6rQyjk0YeNQOsQoV1FlapTvBVET15sCAoy0yf5AwKFvc0sxzndO7uQZdmSlkU5gWnIy4Y5QCdj-Zmm7T_Mnt_D17csccze6JO6MfKQ_j_O-LW9g9EHfnI9flIoIFPBSXn8YOKPQ_kG0nj107yHkA1eyuZN9IcjovHJchExHbrVhDIg9Dswei-d4Oa7n42UuOWAPFUSgXlN-GkLsn51w3suZaSDlDHB6Js9nR4uNJMnZZSFYU7QyJUdrUFKeA14Unb0EpYjWqGkrMMHXgQNXapGjQpTk6aBwUUJXo3KrxZQP6sTjo-g6fCtnQj98rR3fqBjLnjSsYTb9xFOT5MqsnIr1hs12NEOTcCePCUijCkrEkGcuSsZBZsCSZiXi3JbmM-Bt_e_gDy277IENnhwukUHZUKPsvhZqINyR5e75qAz2ff_T2fGMpwPhsdUlDZ-VEvL5RDEvrkTdZXIf99ZXlUmTyASuTTsSTqCjb-WhGS8t5iHJPhfYmvH-na9cB85sc0apU2bP_8YXPxW1mW0xjfCEOhs01viTXavCvwiqi4_FS0fEUzC9DuiEw
linkProvider Directory of Open Access Journals
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differences+in+Gait+Patterns+of+Unilateral+Transtibial+Amputees+With+Two+Types+of+Energy+Storing+Prosthetic+Feet&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+rehabilitation+medicine&rft.au=Ja+Ryung+Yang&rft.au=Hee+Seung+Yang&rft.au=Da+Hyun+Ahn&rft.au=Dong+Young+Ahn&rft.date=2018-08-01&rft.pub=Korean+Academy+of+Rehabilitation+Medicine&rft.issn=2234-0645&rft.eissn=2234-0653&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=609&rft.epage=616&rft_id=info:doi/10.5535%2Farm.2018.42.4.609&rft.externalDBID=DOA&rft.externalDocID=oai_doaj_org_article_878773b6ed894d098a19014be3aee931
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2234-0645&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2234-0645&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2234-0645&client=summon