Literature DB >> 8347071

Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite Foot versus SACH foot.

J F Lehmann1, R Price, S Boswell-Bessette, A Dralle, K Questad.   

Abstract

This study evaluated biomechanical and metabolic performance differences between two prosthetic foot designs in light of their mechanical properties. Ten unilateral below-knee amputee subjects, at least 1 year after amputation, capable of walking and running, were studied. Differences in heel and forefoot compliance explained differences in gait events and alignment. Increased efficiency of pushoff in the Seattle Ankle/Lite Foot exists as evidenced by the decrease loading on the opposite limb during double support and a less shortened step length on the sound side compared to the SACH foot. The natural frequency of oscillation for the prosthetic feet was determined to be too high to provide energy storage and release synchronized with kinematic requirements because neither metabolic cost savings nor differences in metabolic efficiency were found. Comfortable walking speed and the nadir of metabolic rate and efficiency are not different. Via accelerometer measurement, it was found that the more compliant and lossy SACH foot heel was less likely to transmit high frequency vibration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8347071     DOI: 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90013-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  20 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of a prototype foot/ankle prosthesis.

Authors:  P M Quesada; M Pitkin; J Colvin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng       Date:  2000-03

2.  Systematic methodology for the design of a flexible keel for energy-storing prosthetic feet.

Authors:  T S Jang; J J Lee; D H Lee; Y S Yoon
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Synthesis of a cycloidal mechanism of the prosthetic ankle.

Authors:  M R Pitkin
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 1.895

4.  Sensitivity of biomechanical outcomes to independent variations of hindfoot and forefoot stiffness in foot prostheses.

Authors:  Peter Gabriel Adamczyk; Michelle Roland; Michael E Hahn
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.161

5.  Mechanical Outcomes of a Rolling-Joint Prosthetic Foot and Its Performance in the Dorsiflexion Phase of Transtibial Amputee Gait.

Authors:  Mark R Pitkin
Journal:  J Prosthet Orthot       Date:  1995

6.  Impact testing of the residual limb: System response to changes in prosthetic stiffness.

Authors:  Erin Boutwell; Rebecca Stine; Steven Gard
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2016

7.  Step Activity and 6-Minute Walk Test Outcomes When Wearing Low-Activity or High-Activity Prosthetic Feet.

Authors:  Shane R Wurdeman; Kendra K Schmid; Sara A Myers; Adam L Jacobsen; Nicholas Stergiou
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.159

8.  Concept Through Preliminary Bench Testing of a Powered Lower Limb Prosthetic Device.

Authors:  Bryan J Bergelin; Javier O Mattos; Joseph G Wells; Philip A Voglewede
Journal:  J Mech Robot       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.085

9.  The effects of a controlled energy storage and return prototype prosthetic foot on transtibial amputee ambulation.

Authors:  Ava D Segal; Karl E Zelik; Glenn K Klute; David C Morgenroth; Michael E Hahn; Michael S Orendurff; Peter G Adamczyk; Steven H Collins; Arthur D Kuo; Joseph M Czerniecki
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 2.161

Review 10.  Exercise performance of lower-extremity amputees.

Authors:  K H Ward; M C Meyers
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 11.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.