{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017241379310344827, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021551724137931034, 'mean_word_length': 5.071895424836601, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Energy costs of below-knee prostheses using two types of suspension.

The choice of suspension in below-knee prosthetics poses a problem for the clinician because cuff suspension weighs less than side-joint-thigh corset suspension but the latter offers more stability. The energy costs of one compared with the other is of prime consideration when dealing with the older person after an amputation. To determine the energy costs of cuff and side-joint-thigh corset suspension, 17 patients were selected for study. A sepcial prosthetic bucket was fabricated for each patient and designed so that the suspensions could be quickly and easily interchanged. Trials with each method of suspension were carried out before and after a training period, and the cardiorespiratory parameters were measured. After the training period all patients demonstrated less oxygen consumption, but the type of suspension did not affect energy costs.