Joint moment and muscle power output characteristics of below knee amputees during running: The influence of energy storing prosthetic feet

Czerniecki, Joseph M.; Gitter, Andrew; Munro, Carolyn F.

doi:10.1016/0021-9290(91)90327-j

Cited by 188 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…COM location of the prosthetic foot was determined based on regression equations for an intact foot 8 . This step was based on the results of sensitivity analyses from Miller 25 and Czerniecki et al 24 .…”

Section: Distributing Prosthesis Inertia Into Foot and Shank Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This average difference in magnitude amounted to less than 2% of the peak knee moment during stance. Czerniecki et al 24 dismantled multiple below-knee prostheses and balanced the prosthetic foot on a knife edge to determine its COM location. When they compared these results to estimates based on regression equations for an intact foot, they found that there was little difference between the two estimates.…”

Section: Distributing Prosthesis Inertia Into Foot and Shank Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lower mass and more proximal mass distribution of the prosthetic limb also produces a much lower (~60%) moment of inertia relative to the knee joint for the prosthetic limb compared to that of the intact shank and foot. Although researchers 24, 25 have previously suggested that using intact inertial estimates for the prosthetic limb have little effect on joint kinetic estimates, these comparisons focused on resultant joint moments during the stance phase of walking, where the ground reaction force dominates the moment produced at the joint. During swing, where ground reaction forces are not present, the reduced inertial properties of the prosthesis are more likely to influence estimates of resultant joint moments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis

Smith

Ferris

Heise

et al. 2014

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was two-fold: 1) demonstrate a technique that can be used to directly estimate the inertial properties of a below-knee prosthesis, and 2) contrast the effects of the proposed technique and that of using intact limb inertial properties on joint kinetic estimates during walking in unilateral, transtibial amputees. An oscillation and reaction board system was validated and shown to be reliable when measuring inertial properties of known geometrical solids. When direct measurements of inertial properties of the prosthesis were used in inverse dynamics modeling of the lower extremity compared with inertial estimates based on an intact shank and foot, joint kinetics at the hip and knee were significantly lower during the swing phase of walking. Differences in joint kinetics during stance, however, were smaller than those observed during swing. Therefore, researchers focusing on the swing phase of walking should consider the impact of prosthesis inertia property estimates on study outcomes. For stance, either one of the two inertial models investigated in our study would likely lead to similar outcomes with an inverse dynamics assessment.

show abstract

Section: Distributing Prosthesis Inertia Into Foot and Shank Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distributing Prosthesis Inertia Into Foot and Shank Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis

Smith

Ferris

Heise

et al. 2014

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This table indicates the key parameters that describe the running. It is these six parameters (namely 2,5,7,8,9,10) that should be replicated if the rig is to effectively match the amputee. Of these six parameters, three of them are purely a matter of using the same foot and adding mass to the carriage as to replicate the mass of the amputee.…”

Section: A Comparison With Amputee Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Buckley [9] summarises that 'The findings in the present study, indicate that 100% of the energy absorbed by the (Sprint-Flex or Cheetah) prosthesis was returned'; a direct contradiction of the work carried out by [8] who defined the efficiency of a Flex Foot prosthesis as 75%. Czerniecki [10] proposes a value of 84% for the same model of foot whereas [11] suggest: 'The material behaviour of the carbon keels of the dedicated prosthesis provided a hysteresis of less than 10 per cent, indicating a high per cent of energy return'. All of the measurement approaches mentioned previously concern the isolation of a prosthetic device and subsequent analysis using laboratory equipment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the design variables that contribute to the response of a prosthetic foot: Part II — Rig validation

Hawkins¹,

Sewell²,

Dupac³

2016

2016 International Conference Multidisciplinary Engineering Design Optimization (MEDO)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-In this paper the validation of a rig capable of simulating the dynamic response of an energy storing and returning composite prosthetic foot during amputee running is considered. It is shown that the rig can simulate the running action of an amputee runner and return similar ground contact time. It has also been shown that if a small input force is applied in a timed and sympathetic manner to the prosthetic spring-mass system the amplitude of oscillation increases which agrees with results of previous research. The rig will allow the design variables that contribute to the response of a prosthetic foot during running to be understood and optimised to possible improve the foot's performance.

show abstract

Prosthetic Devices and Methods

Gard

2006

Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limb prostheses are designed to replace missing or absent anatomical limbs for the purpose of providing increased function or cosmesis. The goal of the prosthetist is to fit the patient with a prosthesis that best suits their needs and is able to maximize their rehabilitation potential while minimizing disability. Some of the issues that the prosthetist must consider when fabricating a prosthesis include the patient's level of amputation, the condition of their residual anatomy, and the potential impact other health problems may have on their prosthetic usage. Furthermore, the patient's age, gender, activity level, rehabilitation goals, vocational needs, and avocational desires must also be taken into account. The goal in the fitting of lower‐limb prostheses is generally to restore a person's ability to stand and ambulate, and the components are selected by the prosthetist according to the potential walking ability of the patient. Upper‐limb prostheses are used for reaching, grasping, holding, and positioning objects. Issues concerning the control and interfacing of the upper‐limb prosthesis with the body are of primary consideration. The latest technological advances in prosthetic limb components have been aimed at improving function and simplifying operation, with the goal of enabling users to move naturally and to effectively interact with the environment.

show abstract

Joint moment and muscle power output characteristics of below knee amputees during running: The influence of energy storing prosthetic feet

Cited by 188 publications

References 10 publications

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis

Understanding the design variables that contribute to the response of a prosthetic foot: Part II — Rig validation

Prosthetic Devices and Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About