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...
Saved in:
Published in | Annals of rehabilitation medicine Vol. 42; no. 4; pp. 609 - 616 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Korea (South)
Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine
01.08.2018
대한재활의학회 |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 2234-0645 2234-0653 |
DOI | 10.5535/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 |