The therapy of osteo-arthritis is a problem which we have inherited from our forebears. It is a considerable problem; one which affects the community very vitally. The disease produces marked disability which burdens our civic economy. Various methods of therapy have been advocated from time to time such as hydro-therapy, physiotherapy and analgesics of different kinds. This thesis will deal only with the intra-articular injection therapy of osteo-arthritis.

Formål: Formålet med studiet er at undersøge hvordan løb med en dagligdagsprotese og en løbespecifikprotese påvirker kinetik i nedre ekstremiteter hos mennesker med en transtibial-amputation.   Metode: Kinetisk data blev indsamlet ved løbetests, med begge proteser, med et motion capture system og kraftplader i et klinisk ganganalyse lab i Göteborg, Sverige. Deltagere(n=2) udførte løbetests i selvvalgt hastighed, iført refleksive markører. Vertikal GRF, fod progressions vinkel, adducerende/abducerende hofte- og knæmoment udvalgt til videre databehandling.   Resultat: Forskelle i hofte- og knæ adduktions moment og fod progressions vinkel blev observeret mellem de to protesetyper. Momenterne var mindre, når deltagerne løb med den løbespecifikke protese. Forskelle på den amputerede side og den kontralaterale side noteredes ved alle parametre uanset protesetype. Den kontralaterale side havde forøgede værdier sammenlignet med den amputerede side.   Konklusion: Grundet forsøgets størrelse kan vi ikke konkludere, at individer med unilateral amputation i nedre ekstremitet absorberer belastning bedre, når de løber med en løbespecifikprotese fremfor en dagligdagsprotese. / Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate how running with a daily-use prosthesis and a running specific prosthesis affects kinetics in the lower extremities when it comes to people with a transtibial amputation.   Method: Kinetic data was collected through running tests, using both type of prosthesis, with a motion capture system and force plates in a clinical gait lab in Gothenburg, Sweden. Participants (n=2) executed the running tests in a self-selected speed, while wearing reflective markers. Vertical ground reaction force, foot progression angle, hip- and knee moment were selected for data processing.   Results: Differences in hip- and knee adduction moment and foot progression angle were observed between the two types of prostheses. Moments were smaller when participants ran with running-specific prosthesis. Dissimilarity for the amputated side and the contralateral side were noted for all parameters regardless of type of prosthesis. The contralateral side had increased values compared to the amputated side.     Conclusion: Because of the sample size we cannot conclude that individuals with a unilateral lower body amputation absorb load more efficiently when running with a running-specific prosthesis rather than a daily-use prosthesis.