Prosthetic Foot Principles and Their Influence on Gait

Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter describes mechanical properties of prosthetic feet and their effects on level gait of persons with amputations. These descriptions focus on recent literature and knowledge gained from controlled studies of different properties including stiffness/flexibility, damping, roll-over characteristics, active push-off in late stance phase, and toe clearance during swing phase. The chapter also discusses future directions in prosthetic foot research, including the need for both amputee-independent measurements combined with clinical trials. Specific approaches to future studies of prosthetic feet are proposed that could further our knowledge base and ultimately lead to improved prescription of prosthetic feet for persons with amputations.

Keywords

Prosthetic Stiffness Flexibility Damping Heel Toe Mechanical properties Push-off Toe clearance Roll-over shape Research Amputation 

References

  1. Adamczyk PG, Kuo AD (2013) Mechanical and energetic consequences of rolling foot shape in human walking. J Exp Biol 216:2722–2731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caputo JM, Collins SH (2014) Prosthetic ankle push-off work reduces metabolic rate but not collision work in non-amputee walking. Sci Rep 4(7213):1–9Google Scholar
  3. Cavagna GA, Saibene FP, Margaria R (1964) Mechanical work in running. J Appl Physiol 19(2):249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curtze C, Hof AL, van Keeken HG, Halbertsma JPK, Postema K, Otten B (2009) Comparative roll-over analysis of prosthetic feet. J Biomech 42:1746–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Asha AR, Johnson L, Munjal R, Kulkarni J, Buckley JG (2013) Attenuation of centre-of-pressure trajectory fluctuations under the prosthetic foot when using an articulating hydraulic ankle attachment compared to a fixed attachment. Clin Biomech 28:218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dennerlein F, Blab F, Starker F, Schneider U (2014) Simulation of the prosthetic gait with a six-axis robot OT World 2014Google Scholar
  7. DIN EN ISO 22675:2006 (2006) Prosthetics – testing of ankle-foot devices and foot units – requirements and test methodsGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferris AE, Aldridge JM, Rabago CA, Wilken JM (2012) Evaluation of a powered ankle-foot prosthetic system during walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 93:1911–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fey NP, Klute GK, Neptune RR (2011) The influence of energy storage and return foot stiffness on walking mechanics and muscle activity in below-knee amputees. Clin Biomech 26:1025–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fey NP, Klute GK, Neptune RR (2012) Optimization of prosthetic foot stiffness to reduce metabolic cost and intact knee loading during below-knee amputee walking: a theoretical study. J Biomech Eng 134:111005 . 1-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gard SA, Su PF, Lipschutz RD, Hansen AH (2011) Effect of prosthetic ankle units on roll-over shape characteristics during walking in persons with bilateral transtibial amputations. J Rehabil Res Dev 48(9):1037–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geil MD (2002) An iterative method for viscoelastic modeling of prosthetic feet. J Biomech 35:1405–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geil MD, Parnianpour M, Quesada P, Berme N, Simon S (2000) Comparison of methods for the calculation of energy storage and return in a dynamic elastic response prosthesis. J Biomech 33:1745–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hafner BJ (2005) Clinical prescription and use of prosthetic foot and ankle mechanisms: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Orthot 17(4S):5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen AH (2005) Scientific methods to determine functional performance of prosthetic ankle-foot systems. J Prosthet Orthot 17(4S):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen AH, Childress DS (2010) Investigations of roll-over shape: implications for design, alignment, and evaluation of ankle-foot prostheses and orthoses. Disabil Rehabil 32(26):2201–2209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen AH, Wang CC (2010) Effective rocker shapes used by able-bodied persons for walking and fore-aft swaying: implications for design of ankle-foot prostheses. Gait Posture 32:181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen AH, Childress DS, Knox EH (2000) Prosthetic foot roll-over shapes with implications for alignment of trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthetics Orthot Int 24:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen AH, Meier MR, Sessoms PH, Childress DS (2006) The effects of prosthetic foot roll-over shape arc length on gait of trans-tibial prosthesis users. Prosthetics Orthot Int 30(3):286–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herr HM, Grabowski AM (2012) Bionic ankle-foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputation. Proc Royal Soc 279:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill D, Herr H (2013) Effects of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis on kinetic loading of the contralateral limb: a case series. 2013 I.E. International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 24–26, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofstad C, Linde H, Limbeek J, Postema K (2004) Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD003978Google Scholar
  23. ISO/TS 16955:2016-06 (2016) Prosthetics – quantification of physical parameters of ankle foot devices and foot unitsGoogle Scholar
  24. Jin L, Adamczyk PG, Roland M, Hahn ME (2016) The effect of high- and low-damping prosthetic foot structures on knee loading in the uninvolved limb across different walking speeds. J Appl Biomech 32:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson L, De Asha AR, Munjal R, Kulkarni J, Buckley JG (2014) Toe clearance when walking in people with unilateral transtibial amputation: effects of passive hydraulic ankle. J Rehabil Res Dev 51(3):429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kabra SG (1990) Articulated cadaveric bones as a structural endoskeleton in an ankle-foot prosthesis: a preliminary report. J Rehabil Res Dev 27(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kabra SG, Narayanan R (1991) Ankle-foot prosthesis with articulated human bone endoskeleton: force-deflection and fatigue study. J Rehabil Res Dev 28(3):13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim M, Collins SH (2015) Once-per-step control of ankle-foot prosthesis push-off work reduces effort associated with balance during walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil 12(43):1–13Google Scholar
  29. Klodd E, Hansen A, Fatone S, Edwards M (2010a) Effects of prosthetic foot forefoot flexibility on gait of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users. J Rehabil Res Dev 47(9):899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klodd E, Hansen A, Fatone S, Edwards M (2010b) Effects of prosthetic foot forefoot flexibility on oxygen cost and subjective preference rankings of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users. J Rehabil Res Dev 47(6):543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klute GK, Kallfelz CF, Czerniecki JM (2001) Mechanical properties of prosthetic limbs: adapting to the patient. J Rehabil Res Dev 38(3):299–307Google Scholar
  32. Knox E (1996) The role of prosthetic feet in walking. PhD thesis, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, Dralle A, Questad K (1993) Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite foot versus SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74:853–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Major MJ, Twiste M, Kenney LPJ, Howard D (2011) Amputee independent prosthesis properties – a new model for description and measurement. J Biomech 44:2572–2575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Major MJ, Twiste M, Kenney LPH, Howard D (2014) The effects of prosthetic ankle stiffness on ankle and knee kinematics, prosthetic limb loading, and net metabolic cost of trans-tibial amputee gait. Clin Biomech 29:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M, Koval J (2001) The influence of falling, fear of falling, and balance confidence on prosthetic mobility and social activity among individuals with a lower extremity amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82(9):1238–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgenroth DC, Segal AD, Zelik KE, Czerniecki JM, Klute GK, Adamczyk PG, Orendurff MS, Hahn ME, Collins SH, Kuo AD (2011) The effect of prosthetic foot push-off on mechanical loading associated with knee osteoarthritis in lower extremity amputees. Gait Posture 34:502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nickel E, Sensinger J, Hansen A (2014) Passive prosthetic ankle-foot mechanism for automatic adaptation to sloped surfaces. J Rehabil Res Dev 51(5):803–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pitkin MR (1995) Mechanical outcomes of a rolling-joint prosthetic foot and its performance in the dorsiflexion phase of transtibial amputee gait. J Prosthet Orthot 7(4):114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Postema K, Hermens HJ, de Vries J, Koopman HF, Eisma WH (1997) Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet. Part 1: biomechanical analysis related to user benefits. Prosthetics Orthot Int 21(1):17–27Google Scholar
  41. Raschke SU, Orendurff MS, Mattie JL, Kenyon DEA, Jones OY, Moe D, Winder L, Wong AS, Moreno-Hernandez A, Highsmith MJ, Sanderson DJ, Kobayashi T (2015) Biomechanical characteristics, patient preference and activity level with different prosthetic feet: a randomized double blind trial with laboratory and community testing. J Biomech 48:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosenblatt NJ, Bauer A, Grabiner MD (2016) Relating minimum toe clearance to prospective, self-reported, trip-related stumbles in the community. Prosthetics Orthot Int Epub ahead of print. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27280640
  43. Rusaw D, Ramstrand N (2010) Sagittal plane position of the functional joint centre of prosthetic foot/ankle mechanisms. Clin Biomech 25:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russell Esposito E, Wilken JM (2014) Biomechanical risk factors for knee osteoarthritis when using passive and powered ankle-foot prostheses. Clin Biomech 29:1186–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sawers A, Hahn ME (2011) Trajectory of the center of rotation in non-articulated energy storage and return prosthetic feet. J Biomech 44:1673–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Segal AD, Zelik KE, Klute GK, Morgenroth DC, Hahn ME, Orendurff MS, Adamczyk PG, Collins SH, Kuo AD, Czerniecki JM (2012) The effects of a controlled energy storage and return prototype prosthetic foot on transtibial amputee ambulation. Hum Mov Sci 31(4):918–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sensinger JW, Intawachirarat N, Gard SA (2013) Contribution of prosthetic knee and ankle mechanisms to swing-phase foot clearance. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21(1):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Su PF, Gard SA, Lipschutz RD, Kuiken TA (2010) The effects of increased prosthetic ankle motions on the gait of persons with bilateral transtibial amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 89(1):34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Jaarsveld HWL, Grootenboer HJ, De Vries J, Koopman HFJM (1990) Stiffness and hysteresis properties of some prosthetic feet. Prosthetics Orthot Int 14:117–124Google Scholar
  50. Ventura JD, Klute GK, Neptune RR (2011) The effect of prosthetic ankle energy storage and return properties on muscle activity in below-knee amputee walking. Gait Posture 33:220–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams RJ, Hansen AH, Gard SA (2009) Prosthetic ankle-foot mechanism capable of automatic adaptation to the walking surface. J Biomech Eng 131:034002-1-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zelik KE, Collins SH, Adamczyk PG, Segal AD, Klute GK, Morgenroth DC, Hahn ME, Orendurff MS, Czerniecki JM, Kuo AD (2011) Systematic variation of prosthetic foot spring affects center-of-mass mechanics and metabolic cost during walking. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 19(4):411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zmitrewicz RJ, Neptune RR, Walden JG, Rogers WE, Bosker GW (2006) The effect of foot and ankle prosthetic components on braking and propulsive impulses during transtibial amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87:1334–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minneapolis VA Health Care SystemMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Biomechatronic SystemsFraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and AutomationStuttgartGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sebastian I. Wolf
    • 1
  1. 1.Movement Analysis LaboratoryClinic for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery; Center for Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Spinal Cord Injury;Heidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations