Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: a review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature.

Prosthetic devices that can store and return energy during gait enhance the mobility and functionality of lower-limb amputees. The process of selecting and fitting such devices is complicated, partly because of confusing literature on the topic. Gait analysis methods for measuring energy characteristics are often incomplete, leading to inconsistencies in the energy classifications of different products. These inconsistencies are part of the reason for the lack of universally accurate terminology in the field. Inaccurate terminology perpetuates misunderstanding. In this paper, important prosthetic energy concepts and methods for measuring energy characteristics are reviewed. Then a technically accurate nomenclature and a method of functional classification are proposed. This review and proposed classification scheme should help to alleviate confusion and should facilitate enhancement of the design, selection, and fitting of prosthetic limbs for amputee patients.

[1]  H J Yack,et al.  Physiological measurements of walking and running in people with transtibial amputations with 3 different prostheses. , 1999, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[2]  D. Barth,et al.  Gait Analysis and Energy Cost of Below‐Knee Amputees Wearing Six Different Prosthetic Feet , 1992 .

[3]  J. Perry,et al.  The effect of five prosthetic feet on the gait and loading of the sound limb in dysvascular below-knee amputees. , 1995, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[4]  J Perry,et al.  Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. , 1990, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[5]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF PROSTHETIC FEET ON BELOW-KNEE AMPUTEE WALKING , 1991, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[6]  J. Lehmann,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite Foot versus SACH foot. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  D A Winter,et al.  Mechanical efficiency during gait of adults with transtibial amputation: a pilot study comparing the SACH, Seattle, and Golden-Ankle prosthetic feet. , 1998, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  H. Grootenboer,et al.  Stiffness and hysteresis properties of some prosthetic feet , 1990, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[9]  Energy-storing prosthetic feet. , 1989, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  D. Winter,et al.  Biomechanics of below-knee amputee gait. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  D J Sanderson,et al.  Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. , 1992, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  S. Naumann,et al.  ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL AND METABOLIC FACTORS IN THE GAIT OF CONGENITAL BELOW KNEE AMPUTEES: A Comparison of the SACH and Seattle Feet , 1992, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[13]  Hannu Alaranta,et al.  Practical Benefits of Flex-Foot in Below-Knee Amputees , 1991 .

[14]  J. Herrin,et al.  The influence of hospital culture on rehabilitation team functioning in VA hospitals. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  D. Shurr,et al.  Comparison of Energy Cost and Gait Efficiency During Ambulation in Below-Knee Amputees Using Different Prosthetic Feet—A Preliminary Report , 1988 .

[16]  L. Miller,et al.  Analysis of a vertical compliance prosthetic foot. , 1997, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[17]  J. Lehmann,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of energy storing prosthetic feet: Flex Foot and Seattle Foot Versus Standard SACH foot. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  Donald G. Shurr,et al.  Gait Comparisons for Below-Knee Amputees Using a Flex-Foot™ Versus a Conventional Prosthetic Foot , 1991 .

[19]  H. Hermens,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 , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[20]  J E Edelstein Prosthetic feet. State of the Art. , 1988, Physical therapy.

[21]  B. Bresler The Forces and Moments in the Leg During Level Walking , 1950, Journal of Fluids Engineering.

[22]  B J McFadyen,et al.  Running gait impulse asymmetries in below-knee amputees , 1992, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[23]  Y Setoguchi,et al.  Dynamics of below-knee child amputee gait: SACH foot versus Flex foot. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Joint moment and muscle power output characteristics of below knee amputees during running: the influence of energy storing prosthetic feet. , 1991, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  E. Ayyappa,et al.  Influence of prosthetic foot design on sound limb loading in adults with unilateral below-knee amputations. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  Y. Ehara,et al.  Energy storing property of so-called energy-storing prosthetic feet. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[27]  D. Winter Energy generation and absorption at the ankle and knee during fast, natural, and slow cadences. , 1983, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[28]  J Perry,et al.  Efficiency of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[29]  D. A. Winter,et al.  A new technique for the calculation of the energy stored, dissipated, and recovered in different ankle-foot prostheses , 1994 .

[30]  K. Siegel,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of the energy-storing capabilities of SACH and Carbon Copy II prosthetic feet during the stance phase of gait in a person with below-knee amputation. , 1992, Physical therapy.