The physiological cost index of walking with an isocentric reciprocating gait orthosis among patients with T12–L1 spinal cord injury

Leung, A; Wong, A; Wong, E; Hutchins, S

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the Physiological Cost Index of walking with a reciprocating gait orthosis to that of walking with bilateral knee-ankle-foot orthoses (KAFOs) by subjects with paraplegia resulting from T12 – L1 spinal cord lesions.
Methodology: Six chronic paraplegic subjects who had T12 – L1 spinal cord lesions and who previously wore bilateral KAFOs were recruited. Each subject was fitted with an isocentric reciprocating gait orthosis (IRGO) and received a standardized training program. Subjects were then
asked to walk using the two orthotic devices along a 40 m rectangular pathway at a speed that was comfortable for them. The walking speed was measured using a stop watch, and a Polar Heart Rate Monitor was used to measure the heart rate of the subjects. The Physiological Cost Index (PCI) was calculated for comparison.
Results: Ambulation using the IRGO (10.46þ/72.00 m/min) was significantly faster (p¼0.009) than ambulation using the bilateral KAFOs (5.51þ/74.30 m/min). The PCI demonstrated when walking with the IRGO (2.85þ/70.77 beats/m) was significantly lower (p¼0.0306) than that of the bilateral
KAFOs (6.77þ/73.28 beats/m).
Conclusion: Paraplegic patients with T12 – L1 spinal cord lesions walk faster and more efficiently using the isocentric reciprocating gait orthosis as compared to using the bilateral KAFOs.

Citation

Leung, A., Wong, A., Wong, E., & Hutchins, S. (2009). The physiological cost index of walking with an isocentric reciprocating gait orthosis among patients with T12–L1 spinal cord injury. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 33(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640802562368

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Jan 1, 2009
• Deposit Date: May 11, 2011
• Journal: Prosthetics and Orthotics International
• Print ISSN: 0309-3646
• Publisher: SAGE Publications
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 33
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 61-68
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640802562368
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03093640802562368