X and Y are the two measurements we use for underarm crutch sizing. X is the distance between the top of the pad and the top of the hand grip. Y is the distance between the top of the grip and the bottom of the crutch tube or tip.
Do you often stub your crutch tips on the ground? It may mean your crutches are too long. Do you feel stoop shouldered? They may be too short. Try this test: Standing tall with your crutches at you side, allow your hand to drape over the grip. The deep crease between the palm of your hand and your wrist should line up with the top surface of your grip. If that crease falls above the top of the grip, there is a good chance your crutches are too short. If the crease is below the top of the grip, your crutches are probably too long.
Q: How to remove the tips on the crutches/canes to replace them?A: Hold on to the pole with one hand and then pull up and twist with the other hand on the tip.
Inclusion criteria were healthy individuals with American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) I or II physical status classification system, independent in their activities of daily living, and were able to ambulate 100m independently without assistance. Exclusion criteria were patients who had utilised crutches previously and those who had pre-existing upper or lower limb injuries, deformities or surgery that may result in a physical impairment to their ambulation. Pregnant females were also excluded from the study. Demographic data recorded included age, gender, body mass index (BMI) as well as racial group. Prior to the start of the study, participants were instructed on and practiced the correct method of using the axillary and forearm crutch for 3 point crutch gait (non-weight bearing on one affected leg throughout), supervised by either a doctor or a physiotherapist. Baseline heart rate, blood pressure, walking speed was measured.
All 20 participants were put through 3 stations and had to answer a questionnaire at the end of the study about their preference on which type of crutch was superior. Participants had to complete all 3 stations with both types of crutches while in 3 point crutch gait/stance. The order of the stations was fixed however crutch choice within each station was randomised. You may refer to (Fig. 1) for a diagram showing our study protocol. Short periods of rest were allowed (up to 30 minutes) within as well as between stations to allow the patient to recover fully to baseline before recording the next set of values. We foresaw that participant fatigability would be an important confounder in our results and this measure was adhered to strictly.
The 4 stations in the study are as follows: For station 1, participants were required to walk in a straight line distance of 20m in 3 point crutch gait. This was first done without any mobility aids, i.e. normal gait, recording time taken in seconds(s) by a stopwatch. Following that, a pair of crutches was selected at random and the same test was repeated for either crutch, with the participant non-weight bearing on one leg. The time taken for ambulation of 20m was recorded in seconds(s) by a stopwatch. Post ambulation heart rate and blood pressure were also recorded for either crutch.
For station 1, there was a significant difference between forearm crutches and axillary crutches in terms of time taken to ambulate 20m, walking speed, and change in heart rate pre and post ambulation (Table II). Participants completed straight line ambulation of 20m with the axillary crutch (t=51.62s 27.55) about 8 seconds faster compared with when they used forearm crutches (t=59.39 35.62). This result was statistically significant at p=0.04. Patients utilising axillary crutches were also able to walk faster (v=0.5m/s) compared with those in the forearm crutches (v=0.44m/s). This result was statistically significant at p=0.02. Pre and post ambulation heart rate (HR) increments were recorded, with the axillary crutch (HR Axillary=12.5 beats/min) demonstrating a lower heart rate increment post ambulation compared with forearm crutches (HR Forearm=15.85 beats/min). This result was statistically significant at p=0.030. The post ambulation mean arterial pressure (MAP) was not statistically significant (p=0.563), but this was higher for axillary crutches (MAP=3.23) compared with the forearm crutches (MAP= 2.1).
For station 2, there was a significant difference between the two types of crutches for the timed up and go test (Table III). Patients ambulating with axillary crutches (t=75.36s 25.34) completed the circuit on average 12 seconds faster than those utilising forearm crutches (t=63.06s 19.23). This result was statistically significant at p
For station 3, in computerised dynamic posturography, the results are stratified into whether the force platform tilted forwards or backwards. A lower effort score translates to greater stability and balance. In the 5 backward tilt, the axillary crutch was the more stable crutch, with an average score of 39.13 for the axillary crutch versus 42.03 for the forearm crutch (Table IV). This result was statistically significant at p = 0.0497. The difference of score of 2.9 between the 2 crutches translated to a 6.9% increase in effort exerted when ambulating with the forearm crutch over the axillary crutch. In the 5 forward tilt, the axillary crutch showed marginally better results as well, with an average score of 32.15 against the forearm crutch score of 31.44 (Table IV). Though the forward tilt results were not significant (p=0.505), it serves as an indication on the more stable crutch.
Results from the subjective questionnaire are represented in the bar chart (Fig. 2) attached. 80% of participants would choose an axillary crutch (80%) over a forearm crutch (20%) if they had to purchase one. A total of 90% of participants felt that the axillary crutch was superior to the forearm crutch in the areas of ambulation, and balance/stability. A total of 65% of participants also felt that the axillary crutch utilised less energy while ambulating. The results were equivocal for the learning curve of the crutches, being equivalent for both groups. In terms of aesthetics, participants preferred the design of the forearm crutch (60%) versus the axillary crutch (40%).
Participants ambulating in 3 point crutch gait were noted to have reduced speed and increased effort, possible reasons include increased upper limb activity for utilisation of crutches, lack of familiarity with experimental equipment, and poorer balance and coordination in a one-leg stance. In addition, the researchers also observed the participants in 3 point crutch gait spent a longer amount of time in the stance phase, and a reduced time in swing phase.
The in-Motion Pro Underarm Crutches have the most innovative design available on the market. It is designed to reduce the impact on the wrist and underarm areas while also giving energy back to the user for improved mobility.
Traditional crutch designs have remained the same for nearly a century. The in-Motion Pro boasts various features, including a true ergonomic hand grip and a lower post-Spring-Assist Feature. As a result, this patented technology helps reduce the risks of harmful effects of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and nerve damage while also helping to reduce user fatigue while using crutches. They are the best crutches for walking when you need assistance!
With our comprehensive product line, revolutionary technology, and company philosophy of providing exceptional customer service, rest assured that by buying your crutches today, you will never need to worry about where to buy crutches again.
Your payment information is processed securely. We do not store credit card details nor have access to your credit card information.DescriptionAdditional informationThe in-Motion Pro Underarm Crutches have the most innovative design available on the market. It is designed to reduce the impact on the wrist and underarm areas while also giving energy back to the user for improved mobility.
The right crutches for you will also depend on individual factors. For example, not everyone who needs short-term crutches will use underarm crutches. Your doctor or physical therapist might recommend forearm crutches for you instead. You might also transition from one crutch type to another during your recovery.
Crutches can come at multiple price points depending on the style and material. Underarm crutches are generally the least expensive and can be wooden or metal. Forearm crutches and forearm support crutches can be basic, foldable, or deluxe and might cost a few hundred dollars.
This paper describes a kinetic and kinematic study on axillary crutches during one-leg swing-through gait. The primary objective is to evaluate the interplay of forces at the crutch and body interfaces and to relate them in the understanding of problems associated with the use of axillary crutches. Ten normal adult male subjects with simulated left leg impairment participated in the study. For data acquisition, the VICON kinematic system, a Kistler force plate and an instrumented crutch (with force transducers at the two upper struts close to the axillary bar and one near the crutch tip) were used. Results showed that the peak ground reaction force on the weight-bearing leg during lower limb stance increased by 21.6 percent bodyweight. The peak reaction force transmitted to the arm during crutch stance was 44.4 percent bodyweight. These increased loadings could be detrimental to patients with unsound weight-bearing leg and upper extremities respectively. When the crutches were used incorrectly, 34 percent bodyweight was carried by the underarm. This could cause undue pressure over the neurovascular structures at the axillary region. 041b061a72