Scientific methods to determine functional performance of prosthetic ankle-foot systems

Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics

Volumn 17, Issue 4 SUPPL., 2005, Pages

  Hansen, Andrew H ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27744578868     PISSN: 10408800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00008526-200510001-00008     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (75)

1. Postema K, Hermens HJ, de Vries J, et al. Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet. Part 2: Subjective ratings of 2 energy-storing and 2 conventional feet, user choice of foot and deciding factor. Prosthet Orthot Int 1997;21(1):28-34.
2. Huang GF, Chou YL, Su FC. Gait analysis and energy consumption of below-knee amputees wearing three different prosthetic feet. Gait Posture 2000;12(2):162-168.
3. MacFarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, Meier K. Perception of walking difficulty by below-knee amputees using a conventional foot versus the Flex-Foot. J Prosthet Orthot 1991;3(31):114-119.
4. Menard MR, Murray DD. Subjective and objective analysis of an energy-storing prosthetic foot. J Prosthet Orthot 1989;1(4):220-230.
5. Mizuno N, Aoyama T, Nakajima A, et al. Functional evaluation by gait analysis of various ankle-foot assemblies used by below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1992;16(3):174-182.
6. Murray DD, Hartvikson WJ, Anton H, et al. With a spring in one's step. Clin Prosthet Orthot 1988;12(3):128-135.
7. Alaranta H, Kinnunen A, Karkkainen M, et al. Practical benefits of Flex-Foot in below-knee amputees. J Prosthet Orthot 1991;3(4):179-181.
8. Day HJ. The assessment and description of amputee activity. Prosthet Orthot Int 1981;5(1):23-28.
9. Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, et al. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:613-627.
10. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
11. Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, et al. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:931-938.
12. Barth DG, Schumacher L, Thomas SS. Gait analysis and energy cost of below-knee amputees wearing six different prosthetic feet. J Prosthet Orthot 1992;4:63-75.
13. Casillas JM, Dulieu V, Cohen M, et al. Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy-storing foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76:39-44.
14. Cortes A, Viosca E, Hoyos JV, et al. Optimisation of the prescription for trans-tibial (TT) amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1997;21:168-174.
15. Culham EG, Peat M, Newell E. Analysis of gait following below-knee amputation: a comparison of the SACH and single-axis foot. Physiother Can 1984;36:237-242.
16. Culham EG, Peat M, Newell E. Below-knee amputation: a comparison of the effect of the SACH foot and single-axis foot on electromyographic patterns during locomotion. Prosthet Orthot Int 1986;10:15-22.
17. Doane NE, Holt LE. A comparison of the SACH and single-axis foot in the gait of unilateral below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1983;7:33-36.
18. Gitter A, Czerniecki JM, DeGroot DM. Biomechanical analysis of the influence of prosthetic feet on below-knee amputee walking. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1991;70:142-148.
19. Goh JC, Solomonidis SE, Spence WD, Paul JP. Biomechanical evaluation of SACH and uniaxial feet. Prosthet Orthot Int 1984;8:147-154.
20. Hsu MJ, Nielsen DH, Yack HJ, Shurr DG. Physiological measurements of walking and running in people with transtibial amputations with 3 different prostheses. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999;29:526-533.
21. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, et al. Comprehensive analysis of energy storing prosthetic feet: Flex-Foot and Seattle Foot versus standard SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:1225-1231.
22. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, et al. Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite Foot versus SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:853-861.
23. MacFarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, Meier K. Gait comparisons for below-knee amputees using a Flex-Foot versus a conventional prosthetic foot. J Prosthet Orthot 1991;3:150-161.
24. MacFarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG. Mechanical gait analysis of transfemoral amputees: SACH foot versus the Flex-Foot. J Prosthet Orthot 1997;9:144-151.
25. Menard MR, McBride ME, Sanderson DJ, Murray DD. Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:451-458.
26. Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, Golden JC, Meier K. Comparison of energy cost and gait efficiency during ambulation in below-knee amputees using different prosthetic feet. J Prosthet Orthot 1988;1:24-31.
27. Perry J, Boyd LA, Rao SS, Mulroy SJ. Prosthetic weight acceptance mechanics in transtibial amputees wearing the Single Axis, Seattle Lite, and Flex-Foot. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 1997;5:283-289.
28. Perry J, Shanfield S. Efficiency of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev 1993;30:137-143.
29. Postema K, Hermens HJ, de Vries J, et al. Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet. Part 1: Biomechanical analysis related to user benefits. Prosthet Orthot Int 1997;21:17-27.
30. Powers CM, 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 1994;75:825-829.
31. Rao SS, Boyd LA, Mulroy SJ, et al. Segment velocities in normal and transtibial amputees: prosthetic design implications. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 1998;6:219-226.
32. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture 2002;16:255-263.
33. Snyder RD, Powers CM, Fontaine C, Perry J. The effect of five prosthetic feet on the gait and loading of the sound limb in dysvascular below-knee amputees. J Rehabil Res Dev 1995;32:309-315.
34. Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E, Shanfield SL. Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990;27:369-384.
35. Torburn L, Powers CM, Guiterrez R, Perry J. Energy expenditure during ambulation in dysvascular and traumatic below-knee amputees: a comparison of five prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev 1995;32:111-119.
36. Wagner J, Sienko S, Supan T, Barth D. Motion analysis of SACH vs. Flex-Foot in moderately active below-knee amputees. Clin Prosthet Orthot 1987;11:55-62.
37. Wells R. The projection of the ground reaction force as a predictor of internal joint moments. Bull Prosthet Res 1981;18:15-19.
38. Knox E. The role of prosthetic feet in walking [thesis]. Evanston: Northwestern University; 1996.
39. van Jaarsveld HWL, Grootenboer HJ, De Vries J, Koopman HFJM. Stiffness and hysteresis properties of some prosthetic feet. Prosthet Orthot Int 1990;14:117-124.
40. Cochrane H, Orsi K, Reilly P. Lower limb amputation. Part 3: Prosthetics - a 10 year literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001;25:21-28.
41. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki J, Fergason J. Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: a review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002;39:1-11.
42. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki J, Fergason J. Energy storage and return prostheses: does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis? Clin Biomech 2002;17:325-344.
43. Hofstad C, Linde H, Limbeek J, Postema K. Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(1):CD003978.
44. Marks LJ, Michael JW. Science, medicine, and the future: Artificial limbs. BMJ 2001;323:732-735.
45. Rietman JS, Postema K, Geertzen JH. Gait analysis in prosthetics: opinions, ideas and conclusions. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002;26:50-57.
46. van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, Geurts AC, et al. A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004;41:555-570.
47. Wing DC, Hittenberger DA. Energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:330-335.
48. Perry J. Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992.
49. Gard S, Childress D. What determines the vertical displacement of the body during normal walking? J Prosthet Orthot 2001;13:64-67.
50. Ju M, Mansour J. Simulation of the double limb support phase of human gait. J Biomech Eng 1988;110:223-229.
51. Koopman B. The three-dimensional analysis and prediction of human walking [thesis]. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; 1989.
52. McGeer T. Passive dynamic walking. Int J Robot Res 1990;9:62-82.
53. Stein J, Flowers W. Stance phase control of above-knee prostheses: knee control versus SACH foot design. J Biomech 1987;20:19-28.
54. Collins S, Ruina A, Tedrake R, Wisse M. Efficient bipedal robots based on passive-dynamic walkers. Science 2005;307:1082-1085.
55. Hansen AH, Childress DS, Knox EH. Prosthetic foot roll-over shapes with implications for alignment of trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2000;24:205-215.
56. Hansen A, Childress D, Knox E. Roll-over shapes of human locomotor systems: Effects of walking speed. Clin Biomech 2004;19:407-414.
57. Hansen A, Childress D. Effects of shoe heel height on biologic roll-over characteristics during walking. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004;41:547-554.
58. Hansen A, Childress D. Effects of adding weight to the torso on roll-over characteristics of walking. J Rehabil Res Dev; 42:381-390.
59. Hansen AH, Meier MR, Sam M, et al. Alignment of trans-tibial prostheses based on roll-over shape. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003;27:89-99.
60. Hansen A. Roll-over characteristics of human walking with applications for artificial limbs [thesis]. Evanston: Northwestern University; 2002.
61. Hansen A, Sam M, Childress D. The effective foot length ratio (EFLR) a potential tool for characterization and evaluation of prosthetic feet. J Prosthet Orthot 2004;16:41-45.
62. th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics. Hong Kong, China, August 1-6, 2004.
63. Tulchin K, Haideri N. Utility of a multi-segment foot model. Presented at the Eighth International Symposium on the 3-D Analysis of Human Movement, Tampa, FL, March 31 to April 2, 2004.
64. Harp C, Rohr E, Orendurff M, et al. Use of an electromagnetic tracking device in foot motion analysis: validation with neutrally aligned feet. Presented at the meeting of the Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis Society, Portland, OR, April 6-9, 2005.
65. Siegel KL, Kepple TM, Caldwell GE. Improved agreement of foot segmental power and rate of energy change during gait: inclusion of distal power terms and use of three-dimensional models. J Biomech 1996;29:823-827.
66. Buczek FL, Kepple TM, Siegel KL, Stanhope SJ. Translational and rotational joint power terms in a six degree-of-freedom model of the normal ankle complex. J Biomech 1994;27:1447-1457.
67. Jia X, Zhang M, Lee WCC. Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb: dynamic effects. J Biomech 2004;37:1371-1377.
68. Hahn ME, Farley AM, Lin V, Chou LS. Neural network estimation of balance control during locomotion. J Biomech 2005;38:717-724.
69. Schollhorn WI. Applications of artificial neural nets in clinical biomechanics. Clin Biomech 2004;19:876-898.
70. Su F, Wu W, Cheng Y, Chou Y. Fuzzy clustering of gait patterns of patients after ankle arthrodesis based on kinematic parameters. Med Eng Phys 2001;23(2):83-90.
71. Chau T. A review of analytical techniques for gait data. Part 1: Fuzzy, statistical and fractal methods. Gait Posture 2001;13(1):49-66.
72. Chau T. A review of analytical techniques for gait data. Part 2: Neural network and wavelet methods. Gait Posture 2001;13(2):102-120.
73. Geil M, Lay A. Plantar pedobarographic quantification of dynamic transtibial prosthetic alignment in a clinical setting. Presented at the meeting of the Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis Society, Portland, OR, April 6-9, 2005.
74. Kaufman KR, Padgett D, Brey RH, et al. How does the OttoBock C-Leg compare to the Mauch SNS. Presented at the meeting Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis Society, Portland, OR, April 6-9, 2005.
75. Marzani F, Calais E, Legrand L. A 3-D marker-free system for the analysis of movement disabilities: an application to the legs. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2001;5(1):18-26.