Relying on more sense for enhancing lower limb prostheses control: a review.
Michael Tschiedel, Michael Friedrich Russold, Eugenijus Kaniusas
PMID 32680530WHAT IT FOUND
Extra sensors can identify stairs and ramps for prosthetic legs in labs, with accuracies from 82% to 99%, but real-world benefit and fall reduction are unproven.
Key findings
01This review included 32 publications, 24 from database search and 8 added by author cross-check.
02Reported accuracies across reviewed studies ranged from 82% to 99% in well-controlled laboratory settings, but performance in realistic environments was unclear.
03An additional sensor on the sound side can reduce misclassification, but extra body-mounted sensors reduce usability.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Included studies tested sensors or classification in laboratories, with healthy subjects, amputees, or theoretical setups. Everyday walking was not tested. Test procedures were not standardized. The studies are hard to compare. High accuracies were reported in controlled settings. Real-world indoor and outdoor performance is unclear. Some promising sensors require a clear line of sight. Others add body-mounted equipment that reduces usability. Commercial prostheses have limited computing power. On-board real-time processing may not match the computers used in many studies.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that adding sensors or cameras has been shown to make prosthetic walking safer for patients. The review reports laboratory accuracies from 82% to 99%, but says real-world performance is unclear and fall prevention remains an open question.