Cargando…

Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study

BACKGROUND: Following below-knee surgery, the optimal medical mobility device remains controversial as adequate nonweightbearing of the operated extremity is critical to ensure successful healing. The use of forearm crutches (FACs) is well established but requires using both upper extremities. The h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yao, Daiwei, Meyer-Kobbe, Louisa, Ettinger, Sarah, Claassen, Leif, Altemeier-Sasse, Anna, Sturm, Christian, Kerling, Arno, Stukenborg-Colsman, Christina, Plaass, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10201150/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37223637
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/24730114231172734
_version_ 1785045208744853504
author Yao, Daiwei
Meyer-Kobbe, Louisa
Ettinger, Sarah
Claassen, Leif
Altemeier-Sasse, Anna
Sturm, Christian
Kerling, Arno
Stukenborg-Colsman, Christina
Plaass, Christian
author_facet Yao, Daiwei
Meyer-Kobbe, Louisa
Ettinger, Sarah
Claassen, Leif
Altemeier-Sasse, Anna
Sturm, Christian
Kerling, Arno
Stukenborg-Colsman, Christina
Plaass, Christian
author_sort Yao, Daiwei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Following below-knee surgery, the optimal medical mobility device remains controversial as adequate nonweightbearing of the operated extremity is critical to ensure successful healing. The use of forearm crutches (FACs) is well established but requires using both upper extremities. The hands-free single orthosis (HFSO) is an alternative that spares the upper extremities. This pilot study compared functional, spiroergometric, and subjective parameters between HFSO and FAC. METHODS: Ten healthy (5 females, 5 males) participants were asked to use HFSOs and FACs in a randomized order. Five functional tests were performed: climbing stairs (CS), an L-shaped indoor course (IC), an outdoor course (OC), a 10-meter walk test (10MWT), and a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Tripping events were counted while performing IC, OC, and 6MWT. Spiroergometric measurements consisted of a 2-step treadmill test with speeds of 1.5 and 2 km/h, each for 3 minutes. Lastly, a VAS questionnaire was completed to collect data regarding comfort, safety, pain, and recommendations. RESULTS: Significant differences between both aids were observed in CS and IC (HFSO: 29.3 seconds; FAC: 26.1 seconds, P < .03; and HFSO: 33.2 seconds, FAC: 18 seconds, P < .001, respectively). The other functional tests showed no significant differences. The trip events were not significantly different between the use of the 2 aids. Spiroergometric tests showed significant differences regarding heart rate (HFSO: 131.1 bpm at 1.5 km/h and 131 bpm at 2 km/h; FAC: 148.1 bpm at 1.5 km/h and 161.8 bpm at 2 km/h) and oxygen consumption (HFSO: 15.4 mL/min/kg at 1.5 km/h and 16 mL/min/kg at 2 km/h; FAC: 18.3 mL/min/kg at 1.5 km/h and 21.9 mL/min/kg at 2 km/h) at both speeds (all P < .01). In addition, significantly different ratings regarding the items comfort, pain, and recommendation were recorded. Both aids were equally rated for safety. CONCLUSION: HFSOs may be an alternative to FACs, especially in activities that require physical stamina. Further prospective studies in patients with below-knee surgical intervention concerning everyday clinical use would be interesting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV pilot-study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10201150
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102011502023-05-23 Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study Yao, Daiwei Meyer-Kobbe, Louisa Ettinger, Sarah Claassen, Leif Altemeier-Sasse, Anna Sturm, Christian Kerling, Arno Stukenborg-Colsman, Christina Plaass, Christian Foot Ankle Orthop Article BACKGROUND: Following below-knee surgery, the optimal medical mobility device remains controversial as adequate nonweightbearing of the operated extremity is critical to ensure successful healing. The use of forearm crutches (FACs) is well established but requires using both upper extremities. The hands-free single orthosis (HFSO) is an alternative that spares the upper extremities. This pilot study compared functional, spiroergometric, and subjective parameters between HFSO and FAC. METHODS: Ten healthy (5 females, 5 males) participants were asked to use HFSOs and FACs in a randomized order. Five functional tests were performed: climbing stairs (CS), an L-shaped indoor course (IC), an outdoor course (OC), a 10-meter walk test (10MWT), and a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Tripping events were counted while performing IC, OC, and 6MWT. Spiroergometric measurements consisted of a 2-step treadmill test with speeds of 1.5 and 2 km/h, each for 3 minutes. Lastly, a VAS questionnaire was completed to collect data regarding comfort, safety, pain, and recommendations. RESULTS: Significant differences between both aids were observed in CS and IC (HFSO: 29.3 seconds; FAC: 26.1 seconds, P < .03; and HFSO: 33.2 seconds, FAC: 18 seconds, P < .001, respectively). The other functional tests showed no significant differences. The trip events were not significantly different between the use of the 2 aids. Spiroergometric tests showed significant differences regarding heart rate (HFSO: 131.1 bpm at 1.5 km/h and 131 bpm at 2 km/h; FAC: 148.1 bpm at 1.5 km/h and 161.8 bpm at 2 km/h) and oxygen consumption (HFSO: 15.4 mL/min/kg at 1.5 km/h and 16 mL/min/kg at 2 km/h; FAC: 18.3 mL/min/kg at 1.5 km/h and 21.9 mL/min/kg at 2 km/h) at both speeds (all P < .01). In addition, significantly different ratings regarding the items comfort, pain, and recommendation were recorded. Both aids were equally rated for safety. CONCLUSION: HFSOs may be an alternative to FACs, especially in activities that require physical stamina. Further prospective studies in patients with below-knee surgical intervention concerning everyday clinical use would be interesting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV pilot-study. SAGE Publications 2023-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10201150/ /pubmed/37223637 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/24730114231172734 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Yao, Daiwei
Meyer-Kobbe, Louisa
Ettinger, Sarah
Claassen, Leif
Altemeier-Sasse, Anna
Sturm, Christian
Kerling, Arno
Stukenborg-Colsman, Christina
Plaass, Christian
Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study
title Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study
title_full Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study
title_fullStr Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study
title_full_unstemmed Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study
title_short Functional, Spiroergometric, and Subjective Comparisons Between Forearm Crutches and Hands-Free Single Crutches in a Crossover Study
title_sort functional, spiroergometric, and subjective comparisons between forearm crutches and hands-free single crutches in a crossover study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10201150/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37223637
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/24730114231172734
work_keys_str_mv AT yaodaiwei functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT meyerkobbelouisa functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT ettingersarah functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT claassenleif functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT altemeiersasseanna functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT sturmchristian functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT kerlingarno functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT stukenborgcolsmanchristina functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy
AT plaasschristian functionalspiroergometricandsubjectivecomparisonsbetweenforearmcrutchesandhandsfreesinglecrutchesinacrossoverstudy