A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 555-570

  Van Der Linde, Harmen ^a   Hofstad, Cheriel J ^b   Geurts, Alexander C H ^b   Postema, Klaas ^b   Geertzen, Jan H B ^b   Van Limbeck, Jacques ^b  

^a SINT MAARTENSKLINIEK   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Artificial limbs; Biomechanical parameters; Human functioning; Lower limb amputation; Physiological parameters; Prosthesis; Prosthetic foot; Prosthetic knee; Prosthetic prescription; Prosthetic suspension; Socket; Stump; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL ORGANS; BIOMECHANICS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; PATIENT MONITORING; PROSTHETICS;

LOWER-LIMB PROSTHESIS; PROSTHETIC COMPONENTS; PROSTHETIC PRESCRIPTION;

HUMAN REHABILITATION ENGINEERING;

AMPUTATION STUMP; BIOMECHANICS; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; EXPERT SYSTEM; HUMAN; KNEE PROSTHESIS; LEARNING; LEG AMPUTATION; LIMB PROSTHESIS; METHODOLOGY; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; PATIENT MOBILITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION; WALKING SPEED;

AMPUTATION; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; HUMANS; LEG; PROSTHESIS DESIGN;

EID: 4644251475     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2003.06.0102     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Goh JC, Solomonidis SE, Spence WD, Paul JP. Biomechanical evaluation of SACH and uniaxial feet. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1984;8(3):147-54.
2. Menard MR, McBride ME, Sanderson DJ, Murray DD. Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73(5):451-58.
3. Cortes A, Viosca E, Hoyos JV, Prat J, Sanchez-Lacuesta J. Optimisation of the prescription for trans-tibial (TT) amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21(3): 168-74.
4. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527-30.
5. van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group for spinal disorders. Spine. 1997;22(20):2323-30.
6. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12):1235-41.
7. Piantadosi S. Clinical trials as experimental designs. In: Barnett V, Bardley RA, Fisher NI, Hunter S, Kadane JB, Kendall DG, et al., editors. Clinical trial: a methodological perspective. New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1997. p. 61-105.
8. English RD, Hubbard WA, McElroy GK. Establishment of consistent gait after fitting of new components. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1995;2(1):32-35.
9. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354(9193): 1896-900.
10. Alaranta H, Kinnunen A, Karkkainen M, Pohjalainen T, Heliovaara M. Practical benefits of Flex-Foot in belowknee amputees. J Prosthet Orthot. 1991;3:179-81.
11. Alaranta H, Lempinen VM, Haavisto E, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H. Subjective benefits of energy storing prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18(2):92-97.
12. Arya AP, Lees A, Nirula HC, Klenerman L. A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1995;19(1):37-45.
13. 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.
14. Blumentritt S, Schmalz T, Jarasch R. Influence of static prosthetic alignment on standing posture and walking in transtibial amputees. Orthopade. 2001;30(3):161-68.
15. Board WJ, Street GM, Caspers C. A comparison of transtibial amputee suction and vacuum socket conditions. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25(3):202-9.
16. Boonstra AM, Fidler V, Spits GM, Tuil P, Hof AL. Comparison of gait using a Multiflex foot versus a Quantum foot in knee disarticulation amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(2):90-94.
17. Boonstra AM, Schrama JM, Fidler V, Eisma WH. Energy cost during ambulation in transfemoral amputees: a knee joint with a mechanical swing phase control vs. a knee joint with a pneumatic swing phase control. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995;27(2):77-81.
18. Boonstra AM, Schrama JM, Eisma WH, Hof AL, Fidler V. Gait analysis of transfemoral amputee patients using prostheses with two different knee joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(5):515-20.
19. Buckley JG, Spence WD, Solomonidis SE. Energy cost of walking: comparison of "intelligent prosthesis" with conventional mechanism. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(3): 330-33.
20. Casillas JM, Dulieu V, Cohen M, Marcer I, Didier JP. Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy-storing foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(1):39-44.
21. Chino N, Pearson JR, Cockrell JL, Mikishko HA, Koepke GH. Negative pressures during swing phase in below-knee prostheses with rubber sleeve suspension. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1975;56(1):22-26.
22. 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(5):237-42.
23. 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(1):15-22.
24. Cummings V, March H, Steve L, Robinson KG. Energy costs of below-knee prostheses using two types of suspension. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60(7):293-97.
25. Czerniecki JM, Gitter A, Munro C. Joint moment and muscle power output characteristics of below knee amputees during running: the influence of energy storing prosthetic feet. J Biomech. 1991;24(1):63-75.
26. Czerniecki J, Gitter A. Insights into amputee running: a muscle work analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992; 71(4):209-18.
27. Czerniecki JM, Gitter A, Weaver K. Effect of alterations in prosthetic shank mass on the metabolic costs of ambulation in above-knee amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994; 73(5):348-52.
28. Czerniecki J, Gitter A, Beck JC. Energy transfer mechanisms as a compensatory strategy in below knee amputee runners. J Biomech. 1996;29(6):717-22.
29. Dasgupta AK, McCluskie PJ, Patel VS, Robins L. The performance of the ICEROSS prostheses amongst transtibial amputees with a special reference to the workplace: a preliminary study. Icelandic roll on silicone socket. Occup Med (Lond). 1997;47(4):228-36.
30. 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(1):33-36.
31. Donn JM, Porter D, Roberts VC. The effect of footwear mass on the gait patterns of unilateral below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1989;13(3):140-44.
32. Ellepola W, Sheredos SJ. Report on the evaluation of the VA/Seattle below-knee prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1993;30(2):260-66.
33. Gailey RS, Lawrence D, Burditt C, Spyropoulos P, Newell C, Nash MS. The CAT-CAM socket and quadrilateral socket: a comparison of energy cost during ambulation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(2):95-100.
34. Gailey RS, Wenger MA, Raya M, Kirk N, Erbs K, Spyropoulos P, et al. Energy expenditure of trans-tibial amputees during ambulation at self-selected pace. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18(2):84-91.
35. Gailey RS, Nash MS, Atchley TA, Zilmer RM, Moline-Little GR, Morris-Cresswell N, et al. The effects of prosthesis mass on metabolic cost of ambulation in non-vascular trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21(1):9-16.
36. 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(3): 142-48.
37. Gitter A, Czerniecki J, Meinders M. Effect of prosthetic mass on swing phase work during above-knee amputee ambulation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;76(2):114-21.
38. Godfrey CM, Brett R, Jousse AT. Foot mass effect on gait in the prosthetic limb. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1977;58(6): 268-69.
39. Hale SA. Analysis of the swing phase dynamics and muscular effort of the above-knee amputee for varying prosthetic shank loads. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1990;14(3):125-35.
40. Hannah RE, Orrison JB, Hapman AE. Prostheses alignment: effect on gait of persons with below-knee amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984;65(4):159-62.
41. Hatfield AG, Morrison JD. Polyurethane gel liner usage in the Oxford Prosthetic Service. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001; 25(1):41-46.
42. Heller BW, Datta D, Howitt J. A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14(5):518-22.
43. Hill-Watson S, Sheredos SJ. Report on the evaluation of the DAV/Seattle Knee. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1994;31(1):62-69.
44. 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(9):526-33.
45. 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):162-68.
46. Isakov E, Susak Z, Becker E. Energy expenditure and cardiac response in above-knee amputees while using prostheses with open and locked knee mechanisms. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1985;12:108-11.
47. Isobe Y, Takeuchi T, Furuya K, Hosoda K. A Japanese lower limb prosthesis with a fore-joint foot and turntable. Int Orthop. 1982;6(1):49-54.
48. van Jaarsveld HW, Grootenboer HJ, de Vries J. Accelerations due to impact at heel strike using below-knee prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1990;14(2):63-66.
49. James KB, Stein RB. Improved ankle-foot system for above-knee amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1986; 65(6):301-14.
50. Jergesen HE, Hoaglund FT, Roberts RA, Wilson LA, Lamoreux LW, Radcliffe CW. The University of California Biomechanics Laboratory four-bar polycentric knee linkage. A clinical trial in 20 active above-knee amputees. Clin Orthop. 1986;204:184-92.
51. Kohler P, Lindh L, Netz P. Comparison of CAD-CAM and hand-made sockets for PTB prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1989;13(1):19-24.
52. Lehmann JF, 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. 1993;74(8):853-61.
53. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, Dralle A, Questad K, de Lateur BJ. Comprehensive analysis of energy storing prosthetic feet: Flex-Foot and Seattle Foot versus standard SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993; 74(11):1225-31.
54. Lehmann JF, Price R, Okumura R, Questad K, de Lateur BJ, Negretot A. Mass and mass distribution of below-knee prostheses: effect on gait efficacy and self-selected walking speed. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(2):162-68.
55. 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(4):150-61.
56. 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):114-19.
57. MacFarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG, Meier K, Clark R, Kerns J, et al. Transfemoral amputee physiological requirements: comparisons between SACH foot walking and Flex-Foot walking. J Prosthet Orthot. 1997;9:138-43.
58. MacFarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG. Mechanical gait analysis of transfemoral amputees: SACH foot versus the Flex-Foot. J Prosthet Orthot. 1997;9(4):144-51.
59. Mattes SJ, Martin PE, Royer TD. Walking symmetry and energy cost in persons with unilateral transtibial amputations: matching prosthetic and intact limb inertial properties. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(5):561-68.
60. Mizuno N, Aoyama T, Nakajima A, Kasahara T, Takami K. Functional evaluation by gait analysis of various ankle-foot assemblies used by below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1992;16(3):174-82.
61. Murray MP, Mollinger LA, Sepic SB, Gardner GM, Linder MT. Gait patterns in above-knee amputee patients: hydraulic swing control vs. constant-friction knee components. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983;64(8):339-45.
62. Narita H, Yokogushi K, Shii S, Kakizawa M, Nosaka T. Suspension effect and dynamic evaluation of the total surface bearing (TSB) trans-tibial prosthesis: a comparison with the patellar tendon bearing (PTB) trans-tibial prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21(3):175-78.
63. 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.
64. Oberg T, Lilja M, Johansson T, Karsznia A. Clinical evaluation of trans-tibial prosthesis sockets: a comparison between CAD CAM and conventionally produced sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(3):164-71.
65. Otter N, Postema K, Rijken RA, van Limbeek J. An open socket technique for through-knee amputations in relation to skin problems of the stump: an explorative study. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(1):34-43.
66. 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(4):283-89.
67. Postema K, Hermens HJ, de Vries J, Koopman HF, Eisma WH. Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet. Part 1: Biomechanical analysis related to user benefits. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21(1):17-27.
68. Postema K, Hermens HJ, de Vries J, Koopman HF, Eisma WH. 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.
69. 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(7):825-29.
70. Prince F, Winter DA, Sjonnensen G, Powell C, Wheeldon RK. Mechanical efficiency during gait of adults with transtibial amputation: a pilot study comparing the SACH, Seattle, and Golden-Ankle prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998;35(2):177-85.
71. Rao SS, Boyd LA, Mulroy SJ, Bontrager EL, Gronley JK, Perry J. Segment velocities in normal and transtibial amputees: prosthetic design implications. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998;6(2):219-26.
72. Roberts RA. Suction socket suspension for below-knee amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67(3):196-99.
73. Sanders JE, Bell DM, Okumura RM, Dralle AJ. Effects of alignment changes on stance phase pressures and shear stresses on transtibial amputees: measurements from 13 transducer sites. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998;6(1):21-31.
74. Sanders JE, Daly CH. Interface pressures and shear stresses: sagittal plane angular alignment effects in three trans-tibial amputee case studies. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1999; 23(1):21-29.
75. Sanders JE, Zachariah SG, Baker AB, Greve JM, Clinton C. Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2000; 15(9):684-94.
76. 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(3):255-63.
77. 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(4):309-15.
78. Sonck WA, Cockrell JL, Koepke GH. Effect of liner materials on interface pressure in below-knee amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1970;51(11):666-69.
79. Stein JL, Flowers WC. Stance phase control of above-knee prostheses: knee control versus SACH foot design. J Biomech. 1987;20(1):19-28.
80. Stinus H. Biomechanics and evaluation of the microprocessor-controlled C-Leg exoprosthesis knee joint. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2000;138(3):278-82.
81. 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(4):369-84.
82. Torburn L, Schweiger GP, Perry J, Powers CM. Below-knee amputee gait in stair ambulation. A comparison of stride characteristics using five different prosthetic feet. Clin Orthop. 1994;(303):185-92.
83. Torbum 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(2):111-19.
84. Traugh GH, Corcoran PJ, Reyes RL. Energy expenditure of ambulation in patients with above-knee amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1975;56(2):67-71.
85. Wirta RW, Golbranson FL, Mason R, Calvo K. Analysis of below-knee suspension systems: effect on gait. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990;27(4):385-96.
86. Wirta RW, Mason R, Calvo K, Golbranson FL. Effect on gait using various prosthetic ankle-foot devices. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1991;28(2):13-24.
87. Yang L, Solomonidis SE, Spence WD, Paul JP. The influence of limb alignment on the gait of above-knee amputees. J Biomech. 1991;24(11):981-97.
88. Cochran G A primer of orthopaedic biomechanics. 1st ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone Inc.; 1982.
89. Selles RW, Bussmann JB, Wagenaar RC, Stam HJ. Effects of prosthetic mass and mass distribution on kinematics and energetics of prosthetic gait: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(12):1593-99.
90. Mulder T, Nienhuis B, Pauwels J. Clinical gait analysis in a rehabilitation context: some controversial issues. Clin Rehabil. 1998;12(2):99-106.
91. Bussmann JB, Martens WL, Tulen JH, Schasfoort FC, van den Berg-Emons HJ, Stam HJ. Measuring daily behavior using ambulatory accelerometry: the Activity Monitor. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2001;33(3):349-56.