Overview of the Components Used in Active and Passive Lower-Limb Prosthetic Devices

This chapter provides an overview of the current state of the art in lower-limb prosthetic componentry, highlighting both the performance capabilities achieved with current limb systems and the limitations that prevent full restoration of function lost due to lower-limb amputation. The overview first covers the socket interface, beginning with designs for supporting weight-bearing loads and suspending the prosthetic limb commonly used in below-knee and above-knee socket systems. This is followed by a presentation of advanced socket componentry for realizing functions such as vacuum-assisted suspension of the prosthesis and accommodation of fluctuations in residual-limb volume. The focus then shifts to passive and active components used in prosthetic foot, ankle, and knee systems. Energetically passive systems are covered first, spanning from purely mechanical designs with and without energy-storage components to microprocessor-controlled designs for both the ankle and knee. The overview concludes with a presentation of current and emerging bionic knee, ankle, and knee-ankle systems that integrate external power and actuation for expanded functional performance.

[1]  K Yiğiter,et al.  Comparison of the effects of patellar tendon bearing and total surface bearing sockets on prosthetic fitting and rehabilitation , 2002, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[2]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Energy storage and return prostheses: does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis? , 2002, Clinical biomechanics.

[3]  G. Street,et al.  A comparison of trans-tibial amputee suction and vacuum socket conditions , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[4]  M. Goldfarb,et al.  Control of Stair Ascent and Descent With a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[5]  Malte Bellmann,et al.  Immediate effects of a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint: a comparative biomechanical evaluation. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[6]  Martin Seyr,et al.  Activities of Daily Living: Genium Bionic Prosthetic Knee Compared with C-Leg , 2013 .

[7]  J. Sanders,et al.  Effects of Fluid Insert Volume Changes on Socket Pressures and Shear Stresses: Case Studies from two Trans-Tibial Amputee Subjects , 2006, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[8]  Thomas G. Sugar,et al.  An Active Foot-Ankle Prosthesis With Biomechanical Energy Regeneration , 2010 .

[9]  Thomas G. Sugar,et al.  Bionic Running for Unilateral Transtibial Military Amputees , 2010 .

[10]  Thomas Schmalz,et al.  The Safety of C-Leg: Biomechanical Tests , 2009 .

[11]  S. Collins,et al.  Recycling Energy to Restore Impaired Ankle Function during Human Walking , 2010, PloS one.

[12]  S. Wolf,et al.  Pressure characteristics at the stump/socket interface in transtibial amputees using an adaptive prosthetic foot. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[13]  S. Gard,et al.  The Influence of Four‐Bar Linkage Knees on Prosthetic Swing‐Phase Floor Clearance , 1996 .

[14]  L. E. Holt,et al.  A comparison of the SACH and single axis foot in the gait of unilateral below-knee amputees , 1983, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  Hugh M. Herr,et al.  Powered Ankle--Foot Prosthesis Improves Walking Metabolic Economy , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[16]  R G Redhead,et al.  Total surface bearing self suspending above-knee sockets∗ , 1979, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[17]  K. Hagberg,et al.  Osseointegrated Titanium Implants for Limb Prostheses Attachments: Infectious Complications , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  H. Herr,et al.  A Clinical Comparison of Variable-Damping and Mechanically Passive Prosthetic Knee Devices , 2005, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[19]  J. Bussmann,et al.  A randomized controlled trial comparing functional outcome and cost efficiency of a total surface-bearing socket versus a conventional patellar tendon-bearing socket in transtibial amputees. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  K. Hagberg,et al.  One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses--rehabilitation perspective. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[21]  Kenton R Kaufman,et al.  Energy expenditure and activity of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[22]  Joan E. Sanders,et al.  Effects of elevated vacuum on in-socket residual limb fluid volume: Case study results using bioimpedance analysis , 2011 .

[23]  C W Radcliffe Four-bar linkage prosthetic knee mechanisms: Kinematics, alignment and prescription criteria , 1994, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[24]  Kinley Larntz,et al.  Perceived Stability, Function, and Satisfaction Among Transfemoral Amputees Using Microprocessor and Nonmicroprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knees: A Multicenter Survey , 2009 .

[25]  S. Collins,et al.  The effects of a controlled energy storage and return prototype prosthetic foot on transtibial amputee ambulation. , 2012, Human movement science.

[26]  T. Schmalz,et al.  Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[27]  Richard M. Greenwald,et al.  Volume Management: Smart Variable Geometry Socket (SVGS) Technology for Lower-Limb Prostheses , 2003 .

[28]  J H Zettl,et al.  Development and preliminary evaluation of the VA Seattle foot. , 1985, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[29]  Charles H. Pritham,et al.  Evolution and Development of the Silicone Suction Socket (3S) for Below-Knee Prostheses , 1989 .

[30]  Alena M. Grabowski,et al.  Bionic ankle–foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputation , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  J E Sanders,et al.  Mechanical performance of inflatable inserts used in limb prosthetics. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[32]  T. Nosaka,et al.  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 , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[33]  Tracy L Beil,et al.  Interface pressures during ambulation using suction and vacuum-assisted prosthetic sockets. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[34]  Rajiv Dubey,et al.  Kinetic Differences Using a Power Knee and C-Leg While Sitting Down and Standing Up: A Case Report , 2010 .

[35]  C. Pritham,et al.  Biomechanics and shape of the above-knee socket considered in light of the ischial containment concept , 1990, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[36]  M. Lilja,et al.  Movement of the tibial end in a PTB prosthesis socket: A sagittal X-ray study of the PTB prosthesis , 1993, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[37]  H.A. Varol,et al.  Preliminary Evaluations of a Self-Contained Anthropomorphic Transfemoral Prosthesis , 2009, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics.

[38]  Koichi Shinkoda,et al.  Hygiene problems of residual limb and silicone liners in transtibial amputees wearing the total surface bearing socket. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[39]  Alena M. Grabowski,et al.  Effects of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis on kinetic loading of the unaffected leg during level-ground walking , 2013, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[40]  S. Wolf,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of ramp ambulation of transtibial amputees with an adaptive ankle foot system. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[41]  Michael Goldfarb,et al.  Upslope Walking With a Powered Knee and Ankle Prosthesis: Initial Results With an Amputee Subject , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[42]  Radcliffe Cw,et al.  Functional considerations in the fitting of above-knee prostheses. , 1955 .

[43]  Amit Gefen,et al.  Outdoor dynamic subject-specific evaluation of internal stresses in the residual limb: hydraulic energy-stored prosthetic foot compared to conventional energy-stored prosthetic feet. , 2012, Gait & posture.

[44]  H. Ogata,et al.  Total surface bearing below-knee prosthesis: advantages, disadvantages, and clinical implications. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[45]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Comparison of the Power Knee and C-Leg during step-up and sit-to-stand tasks. , 2013, Gait & Posture.

[46]  Imad Sedki,et al.  Patient evaluation of the Echelon foot using the Seattle Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire , 2013, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[47]  Ö. Kristinsson,et al.  The ICEROSS concept: A discussion of a philosophy , 1993, Prosthetics and orthotics international.