Display options
Cite
Arazpour M, Samadian M, Bahramizadeh M, et al. The efficiency of orthotic interventions on energy consumption in paraplegic patients: a literature review. Spinal Cord. 2015;53(3):168-175doi: 10.1038/sc.2014.227.
Arazpour, M., Samadian, M., Bahramizadeh, M., Joghtaei, M., Maleki, M., Ahmadi Bani, M., & Hutchins, S. W. (2015). The efficiency of orthotic interventions on energy consumption in paraplegic patients: a literature review. Spinal cord, 53(3), 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.227
Arazpour, M, et al. "The efficiency of orthotic interventions on energy consumption in paraplegic patients: a literature review." Spinal cord vol. 53,3 (2015): 168-175. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.227
Arazpour M, Samadian M, Bahramizadeh M, Joghtaei M, Maleki M, Ahmadi Bani M, Hutchins SW. The efficiency of orthotic interventions on energy consumption in paraplegic patients: a literature review. Spinal Cord. 2015 Mar;53(3):168-175. doi: 10.1038/sc.2014.227. Epub 2015 Jan 20. PMID: 25600308.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Spinal Cord. 2015 Mar;53(3):168-175. doi: 10.1038/sc.2014.227. Epub 2015 Jan 20.

The efficiency of orthotic interventions on energy consumption in paraplegic patients: a literature review.

Spinal cord

M Arazpour, M Samadian, M Bahramizadeh, M Joghtaei, M Maleki, M Ahmadi Bani, S W Hutchins

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Science, Tehran, Iran.
  2. Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Department of Neurosurgery, Tehran, Iran.
  3. Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
  4. Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Salford, Salford, UK.

PMID: 25600308 DOI: 10.1038/sc.2014.227

Abstract

Study design:This is a systematic literature review.Objectives:Different types of orthoses have been developed to enable and facilitate ambulation in individuals with paraplegia. However, their effect on energy consumption while ambulating is not clear. The objective of this review was to compare the energy expenditure required to walk with these devices.Methods:Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, and based on selected keywords and their composition according to the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) method, a search was performed in Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and PubMed databases. The searches were restricted to papers published in the English language and were conducted during February 2014; the last access to the database was on 25 February 2014. A total of 24 articles were chosen for final evaluation.Results:Hybrid orthoses reduce energy consumption compared with mechanical orthoses when used for walking by paraplegic patients. The isocentric reciprocating gait orthosis has been shown to be more effective than other reciprocating orthoses in reducing energy consumption. Energy consumption when walking with powered orthoses (PO) and hybrid orthoses was also reduced compared with when walking with conventional orthoses.Conclusions:The hybrid orthoses and PO could be effective alternatives in rehabilitation for spinal cord injury patients to help improve the energy consumption.Spinal Cord advance online publication, 20 January 2015; doi:10.1038/sc.2014.227.

References

  1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Aug;79(8):945-9 - PubMed
  2. Spinal Cord. 1996 Sep;34(9):507-24 - PubMed
  3. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997 Apr;21(1):52-61 - PubMed
  4. Gait Posture. 1999 Jul;9(3):207-31 - PubMed
  5. Spinal Cord. 2003 Sep;41(9):506-10 - PubMed
  6. Paraplegia. 1989 Feb;27(1):5-18 - PubMed
  7. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990 Aug;71(9):687-94 - PubMed
  8. Sao Paulo Med J. 1994 Jan-Mar;112(1):495-9 - PubMed
  9. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984 Dec;65(12):778-9 - PubMed
  10. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Aug;37(4):261-7 - PubMed
  11. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009 Mar;33(1):61-8 - PubMed
  12. Spinal Cord. 1998 Apr;36(4):223-7 - PubMed
  13. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2003 Sep;11(3):241-8 - PubMed
  14. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997 Dec;21(3):210-21 - PubMed
  15. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44(3):333-46 - PubMed
  16. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993 Aug;17(2):101-6 - PubMed
  17. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2007 Aug;221(6):629-39 - PubMed
  18. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015 May;10(3):183-90 - PubMed
  19. Spinal Cord. 1997 Jun;35(6):383-5 - PubMed
  20. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;73(3-4):376-81 - PubMed
  21. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012 Jun;36(2):239-46 - PubMed
  22. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1995 Aug;19(2):108-14 - PubMed
  23. J Spinal Cord Med. 2000 Summer;23(2):100-8 - PubMed
  24. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990 Feb;71(2):116-20 - PubMed
  25. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012 Mar;36(1):105-12 - PubMed
  26. Paraplegia. 1995 Jul;33(7):409-15 - PubMed
  27. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Feb;37(1):14-21 - PubMed
  28. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001;121(1-2):75-8 - PubMed
  29. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Aug;76(8):779-83 - PubMed
  30. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996 May;28(5):551-9 - PubMed
  31. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 May-Jun;75(3):198-203 - PubMed
  32. Paraplegia. 1991 Feb;29(2):97-102 - PubMed
  33. Spinal Cord. 1997 Sep;35(9):574-9 - PubMed
  34. Spinal Cord. 2006 Aug;44(8):487-94 - PubMed
  35. Spinal Cord. 2003 Feb;41(2):97-104 - PubMed
  36. Spinal Cord. 2013 May;51(5):356-9 - PubMed
  37. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989 Nov;70(12):811-8 - PubMed
  38. Phys Ther. 2001 Aug;81(8):1392-9 - PubMed
  39. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1999 Apr;9(2):149-57 - PubMed
  40. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013 Jan;8(1):84-91 - PubMed
  41. Spinal Cord. 2000 Jan;38(1):37-44 - PubMed
  42. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013 Aug;23(6):631-8 - PubMed
  43. Spinal Cord. 1999 Nov;37(11):800-4 - PubMed
  44. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997 Dec;21(3):222-8 - PubMed

Publication Types