Literature DB >> 24418933

Comparison of mechanical energy profiles of passive and active below-knee prostheses: a case study.

Kota Z Takahashi1, John R Horne2, Steven J Stanhope3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the recent technological advancements of prosthetic lower limbs, there is currently a great desire to objectively evaluate existing prostheses. Using a novel biomechanical analysis, the purpose of this case study was to compare the mechanical energy profiles of anatomical and two disparate prostheses: a passive prosthesis and an active prosthesis. CASE DESCRIPTION AND METHODS: An individual with a transtibial amputation who customarily wears a passive prosthesis (Elation, Össur) and an active prosthesis (BiOM, iWalk, Inc.) and 11 healthy subjects participated in an instrumented gait analysis. The total mechanical power and work of below-knee structures during stance were quantified using a unified deformable segment power analysis. FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES: Active prosthesis generated greater peak power and total positive work than passive prosthesis and healthy anatomical limbs.
CONCLUSION: The case study will enhance future efforts to objectively evaluate prosthetic functions during gait in individuals with transtibial amputations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A prosthetic limb should closely replicate the mechanical energy profiles of anatomical limbs. The unified deformable (UD) analysis may be valuable to facilitate future clinical prescription and guide fine adjustments of prosthetic componentry to optimize gait outcomes. © The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics 2014.

Keywords:  Prosthetics; ankle–foot; gait analysis; mechanical energy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24418933     DOI: 10.1177/0309364613513298

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int        ISSN: 0309-3646            Impact factor:   1.895


  7 in total

Review 1.  Ankle and foot power in gait analysis: Implications for science, technology and clinical assessment.

Authors:  Karl E Zelik; Eric C Honert
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Adding Stiffness to the Foot Modulates Soleus Force-Velocity Behaviour during Human Walking.

Authors:  Kota Z Takahashi; Michael T Gross; Herman van Werkhoven; Stephen J Piazza; Gregory S Sawicki
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Energy neutral: the human foot and ankle subsections combine to produce near zero net mechanical work during walking.

Authors:  Kota Z Takahashi; Kate Worster; Dustin A Bruening
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Increasing prosthetic foot energy return affects whole-body mechanics during walking on level ground and slopes.

Authors:  W Lee Childers; Kota Z Takahashi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-03-29       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Isolating the energetic and mechanical consequences of imposed reductions in ankle and knee flexion during gait.

Authors:  Emily M McCain; Theresa L Libera; Matthew E Berno; Gregory S Sawicki; Katherine R Saul; Michael D Lewek
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 4.262

6.  Prosthetic energy return during walking increases after 3 weeks of adaptation to a new device.

Authors:  Samuel F Ray; Shane R Wurdeman; Kota Z Takahashi
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-01-27       Impact factor: 4.262

7.  Stride-to-stride fluctuations in transtibial amputees are not affected by changes in push-off mechanics from using different prostheses.

Authors:  Chase G Rock; Shane R Wurdeman; Nicholas Stergiou; Kota Z Takahashi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.