Purpose. A description of gait analysis during overground locmotion has been the subject of various studies, in relation to describing both the kinetic and spatial-temporal characteristics of walking. Measuring the gait of amputees using treadmills is a useful test to quantify locomotive ability, and a tool that helps to control gait parameters during rehabilitation. The aim of this study is to describe the kinetic and spatial-temporal characteristics of gait of rehabilitated amputees, measured with an instrumented treadmill. Methods. Twenty-four participants aged between 20 and 40 years were chosen, who had all suffered unilateral traumatic amputation either above or below the knee, and were classified as well-rehabilitated. Following a paperbased assessment form, the participants were subjected to gait analysis on an instrumented treadmill fitted with two force platforms. Results. The first peak vertical force of intact and amputated limbs presented higher values and was significantly (p 0.05) larger than the second peak vertical force for the amputated limb, indicating less propulsion during walking. A significant difference was observed in the load rate in intact and amputated limbs, indicating more overload in the intact limb. The spatial-temporal variables, cadence, step and stride length were significantly greater (p 0.05) in the below-knee than in the above-knee amputees. Conclusions. The kinetic and spatial-temporal characteristics of gait, measured with an instrumented treadmill, which were observed in all lower limb amputees involved in this study, were similar to the ones commonly reported in numerous studies on overground walking. Thus, treadmill gait training and control of the progress of rehabilitation with amputees is recommended.
1. Tonon S.C., Avila A.O.V.A., Gait analysis in amputees with different level of amputation. Rev Bras Biomec, 2000, 1, 27-31.
2. Gallagher P., Horgan O., Franchignoni F., Giordano A., MacLachlan M., Body image in people with lower-limb amputation: a Rasch analysis of the Amputee Body Image Scale. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2007, 86 (3), 205-215, doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3180321439.
3. Pell J.P., Donnan P.T., Fowkes F.G., Ruckley C.V., Quality of life following lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease. Eur J Vasc Surg, 1993, 7 (4), 448-451.
10. Barbeau H., Locomotor training in neurorehabilitation: emerging rehabilitation concepts. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2003,17(1), 3-11, doi: 10.1177/0888439002250442.
11. Owings T.M., Grabiner M.D., Step width variability, but not step length variability or step time variability, discriminates gait of healthy young and older adults during treadmill locomotion. J Biomech, 2004, 37 (6), 935-938, doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.11.012.
12. Stolze H., Kuhtz-Buschbeck J.P., Mondwurf C., Boczek-Funcke A., Jöhnk K., Deuschl G., Illert M., Gait analysis during treadmill and overground locomotion in children and adults. EEG Clin Neurophysiol, 1997, 105 (6), 490-497.
13. Alton F., Baldey L., Caplan S., Morrissey M.C., A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill walking. Clin Biomech, 1998, 13 (6), 434-440, doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(98)00012-6.
14. Dingwell J.B., Cusumano J.P., Cavanagh P.R., Sternad D., Local dynamic stability versus kinematic variability of continuous overground and treadmill walking. J Biomech Eng, 2001, 123 (1), 27-32.
15. Jaergers S.M., Arendzen J.H., Jongh H.J., Changes in hip muscles after above-knee amputation. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1995, 319, 276-284.
16. Courtemanche R., Teasdale N., Boucher P., Fleury M., Lajoie Y., Bard C., Gait problems in diabetic neuropathic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1996, 77 (9), 849-855, doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90269-5.
17. Vanicek N., Strike S., McNaughton L., Polman R., Gait patterns in transtibial amputee fallers vs. non-fallers: Biomechanical differences during level walking. Gait Posture, 2009, 29 (3), 415-420, doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost. 2008.10.062.
18. Silverman A.K., Fey N.P., Portillo A., Walden J.G., Bosker G., Neptune R.R., Compensatory mechanisms in below-knee amputee gait in response to increasing steadystate walking speeds. Gait Posture, 2008, 28 (4), 602-609, doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.005.
19. Perry J., Gait analysis: Normal and pathological function. Slack Inc., Thorofare, NJ, USA, 1992, 192-195.
20. Vrieling A.H., Keeken H.G., Schoppen V., Otten E., Halbertsma J.P.K., Hof A.L., Postema K., Obstacle crossing in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture, 2007, 26 (4), 587-594, doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.12.007.
21. Oberg K., Lanshammar H., An investigation of kinematic and kinetic variables for the description of prosthetic gait using the ENOCH system. Prosthet Orthot Int, 1982, 6 (1), 43-47, doi: 10.3109/03093648209167740.
22. Skinner H., Effeney D., Gait analysis in amputees: special review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 1985, 64 (2), 82-89.
23. R ossi S.A., Doyle W., Skinner H.B., Gait initiation of persons with below-knee amputation: the characterization and comparison of force profiles. J Rehabil Res Dev, 1995, 32 (2), 120-127.
24. Torburn L., Perry J., Ayyappa E., Shanfield S.L., Belowknee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev, 1990, 27 (4), 369-384.