Stefania Fatone1, Elaine Owen2,3, Fan Gao4, Garth Shippen5, Michael S Orendurff6, Kristie Bjornson7,8. 1. Northwestern University Prosthetics-Orthotics Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. London Orthotic Consultancy Ltd, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, UK. 3. Child Development Centre, Bangor, UK. 4. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 5. Hanger Clinics, Bellevue, WA, USA. 6. Oregon Biomechanics Institute, Ashland, OR, USA. 7. Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When studying the effect of ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) on gait, it is important to know their sagittal plane stiffness. However, there are no established thresholds for stiffness of non-articulated AFOs designed to be rigid. If wanting to implement published algorithms for ankle-foot orthosis-footwear combinations (AFO-FCs), the AFOs must be equally as stiff as those of the developer of the published AFO-FC algorithms. Hence, the aim of this work was to compare the sagittal plane stiffness of AFOs designed to be rigid, made for a clinical trial in the USA, and following algorithms for AFO-FC designs, to those made and used clinically in the UK by the developer of the AFO-FC algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stiffness of 9 pediatric polypropylene AFOs was tested (UK: 6; USA: 3). A computer-controlled motorized device was used in which all AFOs were clamped with the calf shell in a fixed vertical component and the foot section in a rotating plate. Each AFO was tested for 3 trials, loading the foot plate 30 Nm towards dorsiflexion and 20 Nm towards plantarflexion. Torque-angle graphs were plotted and deflection and stiffness compared descriptively across AFOs. RESULTS: Average deflection of AFOs was UK: 3.42±0.83° and USA: 4.81±1.05°. Average stiffness of AFOs was UK: 14.34±3.34 Nm/° and USA: 10.30±1.92 Nm/°. CONCLUSIONS: All tested AFOs deflected only a few degrees in either direction (range: 2.59° to 6.02°), providing the first information reported for the stiffness of rigid pediatric non-articulated AFOs. Overall, the UK AFOs were stiffer and deflected less than the USA study AFOs. AFO design features should be carefully considered as they likely influence sagittal plane stiffness and deflection under load.
INTRODUCTION: When studying the effect of ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) on gait, it is important to know their sagittal plane stiffness. However, there are no established thresholds for stiffness of non-articulated AFOs designed to be rigid. If wanting to implement published algorithms for ankle-foot orthosis-footwear combinations (AFO-FCs), the AFOs must be equally as stiff as those of the developer of the published AFO-FC algorithms. Hence, the aim of this work was to compare the sagittal plane stiffness of AFOs designed to be rigid, made for a clinical trial in the USA, and following algorithms for AFO-FC designs, to those made and used clinically in the UK by the developer of the AFO-FC algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stiffness of 9 pediatric polypropylene AFOs was tested (UK: 6; USA: 3). A computer-controlled motorized device was used in which all AFOs were clamped with the calf shell in a fixed vertical component and the foot section in a rotating plate. Each AFO was tested for 3 trials, loading the foot plate 30 Nm towards dorsiflexion and 20 Nm towards plantarflexion. Torque-angle graphs were plotted and deflection and stiffness compared descriptively across AFOs. RESULTS: Average deflection of AFOs was UK: 3.42±0.83° and USA: 4.81±1.05°. Average stiffness of AFOs was UK: 14.34±3.34 Nm/° and USA: 10.30±1.92 Nm/°. CONCLUSIONS: All tested AFOs deflected only a few degrees in either direction (range: 2.59° to 6.02°), providing the first information reported for the stiffness of rigid pediatric non-articulated AFOs. Overall, the UK AFOs were stiffer and deflected less than the USA study AFOs. AFO design features should be carefully considered as they likely influence sagittal plane stiffness and deflection under load.
Authors: Yvette L Kerkum; Annemieke I Buizer; Josien C van den Noort; Jules G Becher; Jaap Harlaar; Merel-Anne Brehm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.240