Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Carbon-fiber custom dynamic orthoses are used to improve gait and limb function following lower limb trauma in specialty centers. However, the effects of commercially available orthoses on center of pressure progression and patient perception of orthosis smoothness during walking are poorly understood.
METHODS: In total, 16 participants with a unilateral lower extremity traumatic injury underwent gait analysis when walking without an orthosis, and while wearing monolithic and modular devices, in a randomized order. Device alignment, stiffness, participant rating of perceived device smoothness, center of pressure velocity, and ankle zero moment crossing were assessed.
RESULTS: The modular device was approximately twice as stiff as the monolithic device. Alignment, smoothness ratings, peak magnitude of center of pressure velocity, and zero moment crossing were not different between study devices. The time to peak center of pressure velocity occurred significantly later for the modular device compared to the monolithic and no orthosis conditions, with large effect sizes observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available orthoses commonly used to treat limb trauma affect the timing of center of pressure progression relative to walking without an orthosis. Despite multiple design differences, monolithic and modular orthoses included in this study did not differ with respect to other measures of center of pressure progression. Perceived smoothness ratings were approximately 40% greater with the study orthoses as compared to previous studies in specialty centers, which may be due to a more gradual center of pressure progression, as indicted by lower peak magnitude of center of pressure velocity with both study orthoses.
METHODS: In total, 16 participants with a unilateral lower extremity traumatic injury underwent gait analysis when walking without an orthosis, and while wearing monolithic and modular devices, in a randomized order. Device alignment, stiffness, participant rating of perceived device smoothness, center of pressure velocity, and ankle zero moment crossing were assessed.
RESULTS: The modular device was approximately twice as stiff as the monolithic device. Alignment, smoothness ratings, peak magnitude of center of pressure velocity, and zero moment crossing were not different between study devices. The time to peak center of pressure velocity occurred significantly later for the modular device compared to the monolithic and no orthosis conditions, with large effect sizes observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available orthoses commonly used to treat limb trauma affect the timing of center of pressure progression relative to walking without an orthosis. Despite multiple design differences, monolithic and modular orthoses included in this study did not differ with respect to other measures of center of pressure progression. Perceived smoothness ratings were approximately 40% greater with the study orthoses as compared to previous studies in specialty centers, which may be due to a more gradual center of pressure progression, as indicted by lower peak magnitude of center of pressure velocity with both study orthoses.
摘要：
背景：碳纤维定制动态矫形器在专业中心用于改善下肢创伤后的步态和肢体功能。然而,市售矫形器对压力进展中心和患者行走过程中矫形器平滑度的影响知之甚少。
方法：总共，16名单侧下肢创伤性损伤的参与者在没有矫形器的情况下行走时接受了步态分析，当穿着整体式和模块化设备时，以随机顺序。设备对齐,刚度,参与者对感知设备平滑度的评级，压力速度中心，和踝关节零力矩交叉进行了评估。
结果：模块化装置的硬度约为整体式装置的两倍。对齐,平滑度等级,压力中心速度的峰值大小，和零矩交叉在研究设备之间没有差异。与整体式和无矫形器条件相比，模块化设备的压力速度达到峰值中心的时间明显更晚。观察到较大的效应大小。
结论：通常用于治疗肢体创伤的市售矫形器相对于没有矫形器的步行会影响压力进展中心的时机。尽管有多种设计差异，本研究中包括的整体式矫形器和模块化矫形器在压力中心进展的其他测量方面没有差异。与专业中心的先前研究相比，研究矫形器的感知平滑度等级约为40％。这可能是由于压力进展更加渐进的中心，如两种研究矫形器的压力速度中心峰值幅度较低所示。
方法：总共，16名单侧下肢创伤性损伤的参与者在没有矫形器的情况下行走时接受了步态分析，当穿着整体式和模块化设备时，以随机顺序。设备对齐,刚度,参与者对感知设备平滑度的评级，压力速度中心，和踝关节零力矩交叉进行了评估。
结果：模块化装置的硬度约为整体式装置的两倍。对齐,平滑度等级,压力中心速度的峰值大小，和零矩交叉在研究设备之间没有差异。与整体式和无矫形器条件相比，模块化设备的压力速度达到峰值中心的时间明显更晚。观察到较大的效应大小。
结论：通常用于治疗肢体创伤的市售矫形器相对于没有矫形器的步行会影响压力进展中心的时机。尽管有多种设计差异，本研究中包括的整体式矫形器和模块化矫形器在压力中心进展的其他测量方面没有差异。与专业中心的先前研究相比，研究矫形器的感知平滑度等级约为40％。这可能是由于压力进展更加渐进的中心，如两种研究矫形器的压力速度中心峰值幅度较低所示。
