Comparison of prosthetic feet prescribed to active individuals using ISO standards

Background: Little research has been done on the robustness of prosthetic feet prescribed to military personnel, and manufacturers are not required to test their products prior to sale. This is problematic because the prosthetic feet used by active individuals are subjected to loading conditions not seen in normal gait. Objectives: To evaluate whether commercially available heavy-duty prosthetic feet intended for use by military personnel meet ISO 10328 standards. Study Design: Bench testing of heavy-duty prosthetic feet using ISO 10328 standards. Methods: Prosthetic feet from three different manufacturers were tested according to ISO 10328 standards, using a testing frame fitted with axial load and displacement transducers. Pass/fail information was recorded as well as the stiffness and creep of each foot before and after cyclic testing. Results: All feet passed the ISO 10328 standards at the highest loading level, and some significant differences were found within a given model of prosthesis when comparing stiffness and creep before and after cyclic testing. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that manufacturers of heavy-duty prosthetic feet adhere to the voluntary ISO 10328 standards. However, these standards may be insufficient because the tests simulate only idealized gait. Further development of the standards may be necessary to reproduce the circumstances that occur during extreme usage to ensure that prosthetic feet do not fail.

[1]  R Lee Kirby,et al.  Fatal Wheelchair-related Accidents in the United States , 1990, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[2]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences , 2004, Technometrics.

[3]  Brandon J. Goff,et al.  POSTER BOARD 1: REHABILITATION OF A TRIPLE AMPUTEE COMBAT CASUALTY: A CASE REPORT , 2005 .

[4]  Michael Sherman Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences (6th ed.) , 2006 .

[5]  J S Jensen,et al.  Clinical field follow-up of high density polyethylene (HDPE)-Jaipur prosthetic technology for trans-femoral amputees , 2004, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[6]  Rory A Cooper,et al.  Evaluation of the safety and durability of low-cost nonprogrammable electric powered wheelchairs. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  Les Firbank,et al.  Intermediate Statistics: A Modern Approach , 1992 .

[8]  T. Dillingham,et al.  Amputee soldiers and their return to active duty. , 1995, Military medicine.

[9]  T. Dillingham,et al.  Persian Gulf War amputees: injuries and rehabilitative needs. , 1994, Military medicine.

[10]  Rory A Cooper,et al.  Wheelchair repairs, breakdown, and adverse consequences for people with traumatic spinal cord injury. , 2009, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  Sean Zeller Stiffness properties of prosthetic feet under cross-slope conditions , 2007 .

[12]  Hongwu Wang,et al.  Evaluation of aluminum ultralight rigid wheelchairs versus other ultralight wheelchairs using ANSI/RESNA standards. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  L. Pook Mechanical behavior of materials: Engineering methods for deformation, fracture, and fatigue , 1997 .

[14]  Glenn K. Klute,et al.  Mechanical Behavior of the Human Ankle in the Transverse Plane While Turning , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[15]  M. Geil Energy Loss and Stiffness Properties of Dynamic Elastic Response Prosthetic Feet , 2001 .

[16]  J. Jensen,et al.  Mechanical testing of prosthetic feet utilized in low-income countries according to ISO-10328 standard , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[17]  R. L. Kirby,et al.  WHEELCHAIR SAFETY—ADVERSE REPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION , 1994, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[18]  Robert Gailey,et al.  Advances in lower-limb prosthetic technology. , 2010, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[19]  M. Boninger,et al.  Comparison of fatigue life for 3 types of manual wheelchairs. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  J. Steen Jensen,et al.  Evaluation of polypropylene prostheses designed by the International Committee of the Red Cross for transtibial amputees , 2000, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[21]  R N Robertson,et al.  Life-cycle analysis of depot versus rehabilitation manual wheelchairs. , 1996, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[22]  R L Kirby,et al.  NONFATAL WHEELCHAIR-RELATED ACCIDENTS REPORTED TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRONIC INJURY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM , 1994, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[23]  Rory A Cooper,et al.  Review of research on prosthetic devices for lower extremity amputation. , 2006, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.