A Comparison of the Effects of First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Arthrodesis and Hemiarthroplasty on Function of Foot Forces using Gait Analysis

Callaghan, MJ; Whitehouse, Samantha; Baltzopoulos, V.

doi:10.3827/faoj.2011.0412.0001

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Four FSRs are placed on the plantar surface of the foot. Figure 5 b shows the sensor locations, which are defined in the function of the peaks of the plantar pressure data reported in [ 41 , 42 ], corresponding to hallux bone (FSR1), 1st metatarsal (FSR2), 5th metatarsal (FSR3) and calcaneus (FSR4). These locations allow for acquiring more relevant ground reaction forces generated during gait to recognize stance sub-phases, which are suitable to use in feet with normal arch, high arch and flat foot Figure 5 c.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knee Impedance Modulation to Control an Active Orthosis Using Insole Sensors

Villa-Parra

Delisle-Rodríguez

Lima

et al. 2017

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robotic devices for rehabilitation and gait assistance have greatly advanced with the objective of improving both the mobility and quality of life of people with motion impairments. To encourage active participation of the user, the use of admittance control strategy is one of the most appropriate approaches, which requires methods for online adjustment of impedance components. Such approach is cited by the literature as a challenge to guaranteeing a suitable dynamic performance. This work proposes a method for online knee impedance modulation, which generates variable gains through the gait cycle according to the users’ anthropometric data and gait sub-phases recognized with footswitch signals. This approach was evaluated in an active knee orthosis with three variable gain patterns to obtain a suitable condition to implement a stance controller: two different gain patterns to support the knee in stance phase, and a third pattern for gait without knee support. The knee angle and torque were measured during the experimental protocol to compare both temporospatial parameters and kinematics data with other studies of gait with knee exoskeletons. The users rated scores related to their satisfaction with both the device and controller through QUEST questionnaires. Experimental results showed that the admittance controller proposed here offered knee support in 50% of the gait cycle, and the walking speed was not significantly different between the three gain patterns (p = 0.067). A positive effect of the controller on users regarding safety during gait was found with a score of 4 in a scale of 5. Therefore, the approach demonstrates good performance to adjust impedance components providing knee support in stance phase.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%