Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees

Clinical Biomechanics

Volumn 15, Issue 9, 2000, Pages 684-694

  Sanders, J E ^a   Zachariah, S G ^a   Baker, A B ^a   Greve, J M ^a   Clinton, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Cadence; Interface mechanics; Interface pressures; Interface shear stress; Interface stress; Lower limb prosthetics; Prosthetic componentry; Trans tibial amputee

Indexed keywords

INTERFACES (MATERIALS); PRESSURE EFFECTS; PROSTHETICS; SHEAR STRESS; STRESS ANALYSIS;

PROSTHETIC COMPONENTRY;

BIOMECHANICS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALING; HUMAN; LEG AMPUTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATELLA TENDON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; SHEAR STRESS; TISSUE INJURY; VELOCITY; WEIGHT BEARING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AMPUTEES; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; GAIT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRESSURE; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TRANSDUCERS, PRESSURE; WALKING;

EID: 0034333697     PISSN: 02680033     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00026-7     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Appoldt F., Bennett L., Contini R. Stump-socket pressure in lower extremity prostheses. J Biomech. 1:1968;247-257.
2. Sanders J.E., Daly C.H. Interface pressures and shear stresses: sagittal plane angular alignment effects in three trans-tibial amputee case studies. Prosthet Orthot Int. 23:1999;21-29.
3. Sanders J.E., Bell D.M., Okumura R.M., Dralle A.J. Effects of alignment changes on stance phase pressures and shear stresses on transtibial amputees: measurements from 13 transducer sites. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 6:1998;21-31.
4. Sonck WA, Cockrell JL, Koepke GH. Effect of liner materials on interface pressures in below-knee prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1970;51:666-9.
5. Naeff M., van Pijkeren T. Dynamic pressure measurements at the interface between residual limb and socket - the relationship between pressure distribution, comfort, and brim shape. Bull Prosthet Res. 10-33:1980;35-50.
6. Silver-Thorn MB, Childress DS. Sensitivity of below-knee residual limb/prosthetic socket interface pressures to variations in socket design. In: Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of ISPO, Chicago, IL, 1992. p. 148.
7. Naylor P.F.D. Experimental friction blisters. Br J Dermatol. 67:1955;327-344.
8. Powers C.M., Torburn L., Perry J., Ayyappa E. Influence of prosthetic foot design on sound limb loading in adults with unilateral below-knee amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 75:1994;825-829.
9. Arya A.P., Lees A., Nirula H.C., Klenerman L. A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces. Prosthet Orthot Int. 19:1995;37-45.
10. Prince F., Allard P., Therrien R.G., McFadyen B.J. Running gait impulse asymmetries in below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 16:1992;19-24.
11. Torburn L., Perry J., Ayyappa E., Shanfield S.L. Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 27:1990;369-384.
12. Menard M.R., McBride M.E., Sanderson D.J., Murray D.D. Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 73:1992;451-458.
13. Lehmann J.F., Price R., Boswell-Bessette S., Dralle A., Questad K. Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite Foot versus SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 74:1993;853-861.
14. Sanders J.E., Lam D., Dralle A.J., Okumura R. Interface pressures and shear stresses at thirteen socket sites on two persons with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 34:1997;19-43.
15. Sanders J.E., Miller R.A., Berglund D.N., Zachariah S.G. A modular six-directional force sensor for prosthetic assessment: a technical note. J Rehabil Res Dev. 34:1997;195-202.
16. Schreiner R.E., Sanders J.E. A silhouetting shape sensor for the residual limb of a below-knee amputee. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 3:1995;242-253.
17. Zachariah S.G., Sanders J.E., Turkiyyah G.M. Automated hexahedral mesh generation from biomedical image data: Applications in limb prosthetics. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 4:1996;91-102.
18. Hafner BJ, Zachariah SG, Sanders JE. Automated alignment of contour pairs: a hybrid approach with applications to prosthetics. In: RESNA '98 Annual Conference, 1998:272-4.
19. Steege JW, Childress DS. Finite element prediction of pressure at the below-knee socket interface. In: Davies RM, Donovan RG, Spiers RW, editors. Report of ISPO Workshop on CAD CAM in Prosthetics and Orthotics Seattle, June 1988:71-82.
20. Sanders J.E., Daly C.H., Burgess E.M. Interface shear stresses during ambulation with a below-knee prosthetic limb. J Rehabil Res Dev. 29:1992;1-8.
21. Vannah W.M., Childress D.S. Modelling the mechanics of narrowly contained soft tissues: the effects of specification of Poisson's ratio. J Rehabil Res Dev. 30:1993;205-209.
22. Zachariah SG, Sanders JE. Finite element estimates of interface stress in the trans-tibial prosthesis using gap elements are different from those using automated contact. J Biomech 2000;33:895-9.
23. Kenedi RM, Gibson T, Daly CH. Bio-engineering studies of the human skin II. In: Kenedi RM, editor. Biomechanics and Related Bio-Engineering Topics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1965:147-58.
24. Kydd W.L., Daly C.H., Nansen D. Variation in the response to mechanical stress of human soft tissues as related to age. J Prosthet Dent. 32:1974;493-500.
25. Sanders J.E., Greve J.M., Mitchell S.B., Zachariah S.G. Material properties of commonly-used interface materials and their static coefficients of friction with skin and socks. J Rehabil Res Dev. 35:1998;161-176.
26. Naylor P.F.D. The skin surface and friction. Br J Dermatol. 67:1955;239-248.