title: Understanding adaptive gait in lower-limb amputees: insights from multivariate analyses.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In this paper we use multivariate statistical techniques to gain insights into how adaptive gait involving obstacle crossing is regulated in lower-limb amputees compared to able-bodied controls, with the aim of identifying underlying characteristics that differ between the two groups and consequently highlighting gait deficits in the amputees.
  
  
  METHODS
  Eight unilateral trans-tibial amputees and twelve able-bodied controls completed adaptive gait trials involving negotiating various height obstacles; with amputees leading with their prosthetic limb. Spatiotemporal variables that are regularly used to quantify how gait is adapted when crossing obstacles were determined and subsequently analysed using multivariate statistical techniques.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There were fundamental differences in the adaptive gait between the two groups. Compared to controls, amputees had a reduced approach velocity, reduced foot placement distance before and after the obstacle and reduced foot clearance over it, and reduced lead-limb knee flexion during the step following crossing. Logistic regression analysis highlighted the variables that best distinguished between the gait of the two groups and multiple regression analysis (with approach velocity as a controlling factor) helped identify what gait adaptations were driving the differences seen in these variables. Getting closer to the obstacle before crossing it appeared to be a strategy to ensure the heel of the lead-limb foot passed over the obstacle prior to the foot being lowered to the ground. Despite adopting such a heel clearance strategy, the lead-foot was positioned closer to the obstacle following crossing, which was likely a result of a desire to attain a limb/foot angle and orientation at instant of landing that minimised loads on the residuum (as evidenced by the reduced lead-limb knee flexion during the step following crossing). These changes in foot placement meant the foot was in a different part of swing at point of crossing and this explains why foot clearance was considerably reduced in amputees.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These results highlight that trans-tibial amputees use quite different gait adaptations to cross obstacles compared with controls (at least when leading with their prosthetic limb), indicating they are governed by different constraints; seemingly related to how they land on/load their prosthesis after crossing the obstacle.
authors: Division of Medical Engineering, School of Engineering, Design & Technology, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK. j.buckley@bradford.ac.uk
authors: John G
authors: JG
authors: Buckley
authors: Alan R
authors: AR
authors: De Asha
authors: Louise
authors: L
authors: Johnson
authors: Clive B
authors: CB
authors: Beggs
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological / Q000502:physiology*; D000674:Amputees; D001186:Artificial Limbs; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D005260:Female; D005684:Gait / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D007866:Leg / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D004856:Postural Balance / Q000502:physiology
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2013 Feb;28(2):218-24
references: 23261018
references: Gait Posture. 2012 May;36(1):160-2
references: 22424759
references: J Biomech. 1999 May;32(5):545-9
references: 10327009
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Jul;45(7):2122-8
references: 15223785
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Sep;82(9):1238-44
references: 11552197
references: Neurosci Lett. 2007 May 11;418(1):60-5
references: 17382468
references: Exp Brain Res. 2004 Apr;155(4):459-68
references: 14770275
references: Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 May;120(5):1009-15
references: 19362881
references: J Biomech. 1988;21(5):361-7
references: 3417688
references: J Biomech. 2005 Jan;38(1):107-16
references: 15519345
references: Disabil Rehabil. 2003 Aug 5;25(15):833-44
references: 12851094
references: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991 Jun;70(3):142-8
references: 2039616
references: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Feb;169(2):272-8
references: 16421728
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 May;51(5):2487-95
references: 20335609
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Aug;87(8):1115-22
references: 16876558
references: Gait Posture. 2007 Oct;26(4):587-94
references: 17275306
references: Neurosci Lett. 2006 Apr 10-17;397(1-2):110-4
references: 16413969