Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: Lower limb amputation impairs postural performance that could be characterized by biomechanical parameters. This study is to investigate postural performance of persons with transfemoral and transtibial amputation compared to controls without amputation.
Methods: Eight transtibial, nine transfemoral and twelve able-bodied males participated in this study. Lower limb joints, pelvis and trunk angles were obtained from an optoelectronic motion analysis system to evaluate body posture parameters. The mean, range and speed of the center of pressure (CoP) in both antero-posterior and medio-lateral axes as well as the ellipse area covered by 90% of CoP and free moment were calculated using a single force-plate.
Results And Discussion: Differences in body posture were only noted between the non-amputee and the transtibial groups. Transtibial amputees leaned more forwardly their trunk by 3.5° compared to able-bodied (p = 0.028). The mean CoP position in transfemoral amputees was closer to the non-amputated side than transtibial amputees (p = 0.034) and as compared to the dominant side in non-amputees (p = 0.042). Factor analysis revealed three postural performance modalities. Non-amputees postural performance was characterized solely by body posture parameters. Transfemoral amputees exclusively favored a modality associated with standing balance parameters, whereas transtibial amputees exhibited a mixed modality comprising a combination of postural and balance parameters.
Conclusion: These findings support that the level of amputation is characterized by postural performance modalities different from non-amputees. Clinicians could apply this knowledge as part of their routine rehabilitation program to enhance postural and standing balance assessments in unilateral transfemoral and transtibial amputees.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.05.009 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!