scholarly journals Transtibial amputee gait efficiency: Energy storage and return versus solid ankle cushioned heel prosthetic feet

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1133-1138 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Gardiner ◽  
Abu Zeeshan Bari ◽  
David Howard ◽  
Laurence Kenney
Author(s):  
Emily H. Sinitski ◽  
Edward D. Lemaire ◽  
Natalie Baddour ◽  
Markus Besemann ◽  
Nancy Dudek ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-233
Author(s):  
Michael Ernst ◽  
Björn Altenburg ◽  
Thomas Schmalz

Background: Energy-storage and return feet incorporate various design features including split toes. As a potential improvement, an energy-storage and return foot with a dedicated ankle joint was recently introduced allowing for easily accessible inversion/eversion movement. However, the adaptability of energy-storage and return feet to uneven ground and the effects on biomechanical and clinical parameters have not been investigated in detail. Objectives: To investigate the design-related ability of prosthetic feet to adapt to cross slopes and derive a theoretical model. Study design: Mechanical testing and characterization. Methods: Mechanical adaptation to cross slopes was investigated for six prosthetic feet measured by a motion capture system. A theoretical model linking the measured data with adaptations is proposed. Results: The type and degree of adaptation depends on the foot design, for example, stiffness, split toe or continuous carbon forefoot, and additional ankle joint. The model used shows high correlations with the measured data for all feet. Conclusions: The ability of prosthetic feet to adapt to uneven ground is design-dependent. The split-toe feet adapted better to cross slopes than those with continuous carbon forefeet. Joints enhance this further by allowing for additional inversion and eversion. The influence on biomechanical and clinical parameters should be assessed in future studies. Clinical relevance Knowing foot-specific ability to adapt to uneven ground may help in selecting an appropriate prosthetic foot for persons with a lower limb amputation. Faster and more comprehensive adaptations to uneven ground may lower the need for compensations and therefore increase user safety.


1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Postema ◽  
H. J. Hermens ◽  
J. De Vries ◽  
H. F.J.M. Koopman ◽  
W. H. Eisma

The energy storing and releasing behaviour of 2 energy storing feet (ESF) and 2 conventional prosthetic feet (CF) were compared (ESF: Otto Bock Dynamic Pro and Hanger Quantum; CF: Otto Bock Multi Axial and Otto Bock Lager). Ten trans-tibial amputees were selected. The study was designed as a double-blind, randomised trial. For gait analysis a VICON motion analysis system was used with 2 AMTI force platforms. A special measuring device was used for measuring energy storage and release of the foot during a simulated step. The impulses of the anteroposterior component of the ground force showed small, statistically non-significant differences (deceleration phase: 22.7–23.4 Ns; acceleration phase: 17.0–18.4 Ns). The power storage and release phases as well as the net results also showed small differences (maximum difference in net result is 0.03 J kg−1). It was estimated that these differences lead to a maximum saving of 3% of metabolic energy during walking. It was considered unlikely that the subjects would notice this difference. It was concluded that during walking differences in mechanical energy expenditure of this magnitude are probably not of clinical relevance. Ankle power, as an indicator for energy storage and release gave different results to the energy storage and release as measured with the special test device, especially during landing response. In the biomechanical model (based on inverse dynamics) used in the gait analysis the deformation of the material is not taken into consideration and hence this method of gait analysis is probably not suitable for calculation of shock absorption.


2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah R. Vickers ◽  
C. Palk ◽  
A.S. McIntosh ◽  
K.T. Beatty

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 918-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ava D. Segal ◽  
Karl E. Zelik ◽  
Glenn K. Klute ◽  
David C. Morgenroth ◽  
Michael E. Hahn ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document