Comparison of mechanical energy profiles of passive and active below-knee prostheses: A case study

Background: With the recent technological advancements of prosthetic lower limbs, there is currently a great desire to objectively evaluate existing prostheses. Using a novel biomechanical analysis, the purpose of this case study was to compare the mechanical energy profiles of anatomical and two disparate prostheses: a passive prosthesis and an active prosthesis. Case description and methods: An individual with a transtibial amputation who customarily wears a passive prosthesis (Elation, Össur) and an active prosthesis (BiOM, iWalk, Inc.) and 11 healthy subjects participated in an instrumented gait analysis. The total mechanical power and work of below-knee structures during stance were quantified using a unified deformable segment power analysis. Findings and outcomes: Active prosthesis generated greater peak power and total positive work than passive prosthesis and healthy anatomical limbs. Conclusion: The case study will enhance future efforts to objectively evaluate prosthetic functions during gait in individuals with transtibial amputations. Clinical relevance A prosthetic limb should closely replicate the mechanical energy profiles of anatomical limbs. The unified deformable (UD) analysis may be valuable to facilitate future clinical prescription and guide fine adjustments of prosthetic componentry to optimize gait outcomes.

[1]  Michael E. Hahn,et al.  The Potential for Error With Use of Inverse Dynamic Calculations in Gait Analysis of Individuals With Lower Limb Loss: A Review of Model Selection and Assumptions , 2010 .

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

[3]  Steven J Stanhope,et al.  Mechanical energy profiles of the combined ankle-foot system in normal gait: insights for prosthetic designs. , 2013, Gait & posture.

[4]  A. E. Ferris,et al.  Evaluation of a powered ankle-foot prosthetic system during walking. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[5]  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.

[6]  T. Kepple,et al.  Translational and rotational joint power terms in a six degree-of-freedom model of the normal ankle complex. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

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

[8]  M Parnianpour,et al.  Comparison of methods for the calculation of energy storage and return in a dynamic elastic response prosthesis. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  Steven J Stanhope,et al.  A unified deformable (UD) segment model for quantifying total power of anatomical and prosthetic below-knee structures during stance in gait. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[10]  G E Caldwell,et al.  Improved agreement of foot segmental power and rate of energy change during gait: inclusion of distal power terms and use of three-dimensional models. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  Andrew Franklyn-Miller,et al.  Biomechanical models in the study of lower limb amputee kinematics: a review , 2011, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[12]  Dirk Lefeber,et al.  Prosthetic feet: State-of-the-art review and the importance of mimicking human ankle–foot biomechanics , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[13]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: a review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[14]  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.

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