Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35097481›Full record

ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2021

EMG Activity With Use of a Hands-Free Single Crutch vs a Knee Scooter.

Cuyler Dewar, Terry L Grindstaff, Brooke Farmer, Morgan Sainsbury, Sam Gay, Weston Kroes, Kevin D Martin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Biomechanical Analysis of the Unaffected Limb While Using a Hands-Free Crutch.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cuyler DewarSchool of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9747-8403
Terry L GrindstaffDepartment of Physical Therapy, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA.
Brooke FarmerDepartment of Physical Therapy, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA.
Morgan SainsburySchool of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA.
Sam GaySchool of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5385-5932
Weston KroesSchool of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9998-2635
Kevin D MartinWexner Medical Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4070-6510
Creighton University · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoot and ankle injuries frequently require a period of nonweightbearing, resulting in muscle atrophy. Our previous study compared a hands-free single crutch (HFSC) to standard axillary crutches and found increased muscle recruitment and intensity while using the HFSC. Knee scooters are another commonly prescribed nonweightbearing device. The purpose of this study is to examine the electromyographic (EMG) differences between an HFSC and knee scooter, in conjunction with device preference and perceived exertion.

methodsA randomized crossover study was performed using 30 noninjured young adults. Wireless surface EMG electrodes were placed on the belly of the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), lateral gastrocnemius (LG), and gluteus maximus (GM). Participants then ambulated along a 20-m walking area while 15 seconds of the gait cycle was recorded across 3 conditions: walking with a knee scooter, an HFSC, and with no assistive device. Mean muscle activity and peak EMG activity were recorded for each ambulatory modality. Immediately following testing, patient exertion and device preference was recorded.

resultsThe RF, LG, and GM showed increased peak EMG activity percentage, and the LG showed increased mean muscle activity while using the HFSC compared with the knee scooter. When comparing the knee scooter and HFSC to walking, both showed increased muscle activity in the RF, VL, and LG but no difference in the GM. There was no statistical difference in participant preference, whereas the HFSC had a statistically significant higher perceived exertion than the knee scooter (

conclusionIn this group of young, healthy noninjured volunteers, the HFSC demonstrated increased peak EMG activity in most muscle groups tested compared with the knee scooter. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Indexed as

ambulatory aidassistive deviceelectromyographyhands-free single crutchiWALKFreeknee scooterlower extremity injurynonweightbearing

Identifiers

PMID35097481
PMCPMC8664314
OpenAlexW4200162995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.