ArticleCanadian prosthetics & orthotics journal2024
Overcoming barriers to cycling for knee disarticulation and transfemoral prosthesis users: A pilot study in The Netherlands.
Article in Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCycling has a number of benefits, especially for individuals with a knee disarticulation or transfemoral prosthesis. However, the barriers they face in cycling are not well understood.
objectivesTo explore the barriers in cycling experienced by users with a knee disarticulation or transfemoral prosthesis, and to gather solutions to overcome these barriers. METHODOLOGY: A qualitative research approach was used. In-depth, semi-structured, self-developed interviews were conducted with experienced prosthetic users (N=8) and an adapted version was used for certified prosthetists/orthotists (CPOs) (N=3). The interview included physical, psychological, prosthetic, and bicycle-related items.
findingsBased on the findings from the interviews, the following barriers and corresponding recommendations were identified:Physical barriers: Exertion, skin damage in the groin area and discomfort in the back and hip.Recommendation: Use of an electric bicycle and use of a crank shortener or saddle adjustment to overcome asymmetry in cycling.Psychological barriers: Fear of falling or fear of balance disturbances.Recommendation: Task- and context-specific training, or graded exposure to cycling during prosthetic training, along with potentially using a more advanced bike with improved balance.Prosthetic barriers: Problems with switching the knee prosthesis mode for cycling; challenges with prosthetic suspension; and discomfort caused by the socket brim design.Recommendation: Manufacturers should integrate automatic detection of cycling in microprocessor prosthetic knee joints; use of a total elastic suspension belt (TES-belt); and lowering the ventral edge of the socket.Bicycle-related barriers: Slipping of the prosthetic foot off the pedal.Recommendation: Use of anti-slip pedals or a block heel under the shoe.
conclusionBy addressing the challenges and barriers, we aim to promote greater engagement in cycling, which offers significant physical and psychological benefits for persons with knee disarticulation or transfemoral amputation. Eventually, this can enhance their quality of life and foster greater independence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.