Componentry for Lower Extremity Prostheses

&NA; Prosthetic components for both transtibial and transfemoral amputations are available for patients of every level of ambulation. Most current suspension systems, knees, foot/ankle assemblies, and shock absorbers use endoskeletal construction that emphasizes total contact and weight distribution between bony structures and soft tissues. Different components offer varying benefits to energy expenditure, activity level, balance, and proprioception. Less dynamic ambulators may use fixed‐cadence knees and non‐dynamic response feet; higher functioning walkers benefit from dynamic response feet and variable‐cadence knees. In addition, specific considerations must be kept in mind when fitting a patient with peripheral vascular disease or diabetes.

[1]  M. B. Taylor,et al.  A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs , 1996, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[2]  J B Bussmann,et al.  Effects of prosthetic mass and mass distribution on kinematics and energetics of prosthetic gait: a systematic review. , 1999, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  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.

[4]  H. Cochrane,et al.  Lower limb amputation Part 3: Prosthetics - a 10 year literature review , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

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

[6]  J. Collin,et al.  Mobility after lower‐limb amputation , 1995, The British journal of surgery.

[7]  H. Hermens,et al.  Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet Part 1: Biomechanical analysis related to user benefits , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[8]  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.

[9]  Specialized prostheses for activities. An update. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  S. Kapp.  Transfemoral socket design and suspension options. , 2000, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[11]  D A Boone,et al.  Custom design in lower limb prosthetics for athletic activity. , 2000, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[12]  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 .

[13]  Mark W. Cornwall,et al.  The Effect of Four Prosthetic Feet on Reducing Plantar Pressures in Diabetic Amputees , 2000 .

[14]  D. Boone,et al.  Effect of trans-tibial prosthesis pylon flexibility on ground reaction forces during gait , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  H D Romo,et al.  Prosthetic knees. , 2000, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[16]  J. Lehmann,et al.  Mass and mass distribution of below-knee prostheses: effect on gait efficacy and self-selected walking speed. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[17]  P. McCollum,et al.  Rehabilitation outcome 5 years after 100 lower limb amputations , 1995, The British journal of surgery.

[18]  M. Nash,et al.  The effects of prosthesis mass on metabolic cost of ambulation in non-vascular trans-tibial amputees , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[19]  K. Slater,et al.  Comparative analysis of below-knee prosthetic socket liner materials. , 1998, Journal of medical engineering & technology.

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

[21]  Romo Hd.  Specialized prostheses for activities. An update. , 1999 .

[22]  J A Leonard,et al.  Prosthetics, orthotics, and assistive devices. 3. Prosthetics. , 1989, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  D Datta,et al.  Conventional versus microchip controlled pneumatic swing phase control for trans-femoral amputees: User's verdict , 1998, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[24]  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.

[25]  G. Reiber,et al.  Lower extremity foot ulcers and amputations in diabetes , 1995 .

[26]  M. Nash,et al.  The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[27]  M L Edwards.  Below knee prosthetic socket designs and suspension systems. , 2000, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[28]  J. Dingwell,et al.  Use of an instrumented treadmill for real-time gait symmetry evaluation and feedback in normal and trans-tibial amputee subjects , 1996, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[30]  J. D. Morrison,et al.  Rehabilitation outcome 5 years after 100 lower‐limb amputations , 1994, The British journal of surgery.

[31]  H. Rietman,et al.  Lower limb amputation Part 2: Rehabilitation - a 10 year literature review , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[32]  S Kapp,et al.  Suspension systems for prostheses. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[33]  W D Spence,et al.  Energy cost of walking: comparison of "intelligent prosthesis" with conventional mechanism. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[34]  J. S. Rietman,et al.  Gait analysis in prosthetics: Opinions, ideas and conclusions , 2002, Prosthetics and orthotics international.