Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Unaffected leg resultant ground reaction force impact peaks and loading rates

From: Effects of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis on kinetic loading of the unaffected leg during level-ground walking

Speed Unaffected leg 1stpeak GRF (N/kg) Unaffected leg GRF rate (N/kg/s)
(m/s) Passive Powered % Diff Control Passive Powered % Diff Control
0.75 9.97 ± 0.21*^ 9.76 ± 0.13 -2.1 9.79 ± 0.27 71.7 ± 36.6 68.8 ± 26.2 -4.0 49.2 ± 16.5
1.00 10.39 ± 0.40* 9.75 ± 0.22 -6.2 9.86 ± 0.37 87.0 ± 39.2 82.5 ± 23.1 -5.2 73.5 ± 15.0
1.25 11.33 ± 0.67*^ 10.52 ± 0.75 -7.2 10.62 ± 0.39 118.7 ± 41.9^ 103.7 ± 28.8^ -12.6 79.6 ± 7.4
1.50 12.77 ± 1.10*^ 11.41 ± 1.28 -10.7 11.58 ± 0.75 137.1 ± 53.2 123.6 ± 22.9 -9.8 104.5 ± 18.9
1.75 13.87 ± 1.24^ 13.42 ± 1.70 -3.3 12.32 ± 0.41 176.6 ± 46.8 160.5 ± 44.6 -9.1 151.6 ± 43.5
  1. Average ± S.D. resultant ground reaction force impact peaks and resultant ground reaction force loading rates of each subject with an amputation using a passive-elastic (Passive) or powered (Powered) prosthesis, and non-amputee subjects (Control) across a range of walking speeds. The decreases in peak GRFs and loading rates between the passive-elastic and powered prostheses are shown as a percentage difference (% Diff). * indicates a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between subjects with an amputation using the passive-elastic versus powered prostheses. ^ indicates a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between subjects with an amputation and non-amputees (Control). P-values for GRF loading rates between subjects with an amputation using the passive-elastic versus powered prostheses were 0.81, 0.70, 0.27, 0.36, and 0.14 at speeds of 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, and 1.75 m/s, respectively.