| Literature DB >> 24892102 |
Morshed Alam1, Imtiaz Ahmed Choudhury1, Azuddin Bin Mamat1.
Abstract
Robotic technologies are being employed increasingly in the treatment of lower limb disabilities. Individuals suffering from stroke and other neurological disorders often experience inadequate dorsiflexion during swing phase of the gait cycle due to dorsiflexor muscle weakness. This type of pathological gait, mostly known as drop-foot gait, has two major complications, foot-slap during loading response and toe-drag during swing. Ankle foot orthotic (AFO) devices are mostly prescribed to resolve these complications. Existing AFOs are designed with or without articulated joint with various motion control elements like springs, dampers, four-bar mechanism, series elastic actuator, and so forth. This paper examines various AFO designs for drop-foot, discusses the mechanism, and identifies limitations and remaining design challenges. Along with two commercially available AFOs some designs possess promising prospective to be used as daily-wear device. However, the design and mechanism of AFO must ensure compactness, light weight, low noise, and high efficiency. These entailments present significant engineering challenges to develop a new design with wide consumer adoption.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24892102 PMCID: PMC4032669 DOI: 10.1155/2014/867869
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Different phases of normal gait cycle.
Summary of reviewed design.
| AFO type | Weight | Active joint element | Locking/ | Maximum resistive moment | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dream brace [ | 0.35 Kg | One-way frictional clutch | Resistive | 1.6–1.8 Nm for small and medium size | Light weight, compact | Fixed resistance in plantarflexion direction throughout the gait cycle |
|
| ||||||
| AFO with oil damper [ | 0.40 Kg | Oil damper | Resistive | 5–20 Nm per 10° of plantarflexion | Adjustability of | Resistive torque cannot be modulated |
|
| ||||||
| AFO with passive pneumatic element [ | — | Passive pneumatic element | Resistive | 4 Nm | Compact, lightweight, variable motion control | Difficult to adjust the constraint force |
|
| ||||||
| University of Illinois AFO [ | 1 Kg | Cam lock mechanism | Locking | — | Energy harvesting capacity, variable motion control | Bulky size, no resistance during loading response |
|
| ||||||
| Okayama University AFO [ | 0.86 Kg | Pneumatic actuator | Assistive | 2 Nm | Energy harvesting capacity, untethered | Bulky size, small assistive torque |
|
| ||||||
| iAFO [ | 1.3 Kg | MR damper | Resistive | 5 Nm at 20°/s | Different modes of rigidity during gait cycle, smaller power system required, untethered | Heavy, control setting needs skilled physician |
|
| ||||||
| AFO with MR brake [ | 1.6 Kg | MR brake | Resistive | 24 Nm | Large braking torque, modulation of stiffness in different phases of gait | Heavy, tethered and high energy consuming |
|
| ||||||
| Halmstad AFO [ | — | MR damper | Resistive | — | Responds to change of surface condition, simple and untethered design, only three control parameters | Bulky, not capable of producing assisting torque |
|
| ||||||
| AFO with CMRFB [ | 0.99 Kg | Compact MR fluid brake and a spring unit on the ankle joint | Resistive | 10 Nm | Lightweight, compact, better motion control | Tethered, complex mechanism |
|
| ||||||
| AFO with SEA [ | 2.6 Kg | Series elastic actuator | Assistive | — | Adjustable ankle impedance, provides both plantarflexion and dorsiflexion assistance | High weight, tethered |
|
| ||||||
| AAFO with SEA [ | — | Series elastic actuator | Assistive | — | Plantarflexion and dorsiflexion motion control, adjustable impedance | Bulky size, tethered |
|
| ||||||
| AFO with four-bar mechanism [ | 0.625 Kg | Passive four-bar linkage mechanism | Assistive | — | Simple, lightweight, does not restrict motion other than swing phase | Uncomfortable, not adjustable, unable to prevent foot-slap, actuation depends on knee flexion |
|
| ||||||
| IPEC AFO [ | 0.46 Kg | Active four-bar linkage and spring mechanism | Assistive | 3.51 Nm in dorsiflexion | Lightweight, able to provide both plantarflexion and dorsiflexion moments | Bulky, |
Figure 2A schematic diagram of the ankle joint of AFO with oil damper [34].
Figure 3Free and constraint mode of passive pneumatic element [37].
Figure 4(a) Posterior and lateral view of a power harvesting AFO (b) engaging and disengaging of cam lock during gait cycle [10].
Figure 5(a) Different components and (b) pneumatic driving circuit of a power harvesting AFO [39].
Figure 6The intelligent AFO with MR fluid damper [40].
Figure 7(a) Schematic of MR brake cross section of MR brake, (b) linkage mechanism [41].
Figure 8Halmstad University AFO with MR fluid damper; here α is the adjustable ankle angle [32].
Figure 9(a) Passive AFO with four-bar mechanism [43]. (b) An AFO with insertion point eccentricity control [9].
Figure 10(a) An articulated AFO with SEA, (b) a series elastic actuator [42].