2011
DOI: 10.1109/tnsre.2011.2159018
| View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Lower-limb amputees expend more energy to walk than non-amputees and have an elevated risk of secondary disabilities. Insufficient push-off by the prosthetic foot may be a contributing factor. We aimed to systematically study the effect of prosthetic foot mechanics on gait, to gain insight into fundamental prosthetic design principles. We varied a single parameter in isolation, the energy-storing spring in a prototype prosthetic foot, the Controlled Energy Storage and Return (CESR) foot, and observed the effec… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
104
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
5
104
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In clinical populations with decreased ankle push-off capabilities (e.g. individuals with lower-limb amputation wearing conventional passive prosthetic feet), COM push-off has also been observed to decrease Caputo and Collins, 2014;Collins and Kuo, 2010;Herr and Grabowski, 2012;Houdijk et al, 2009;Zelik et al, 2011), further supporting the contention that the burst of ankle push-off work contributes to energy changes of the COM. When ankle push-off was increased in a prosthesis (e.g.…”
Section: Com Accelerationmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In clinical populations with decreased ankle push-off capabilities (e.g. individuals with lower-limb amputation wearing conventional passive prosthetic feet), COM push-off has also been observed to decrease Caputo and Collins, 2014;Collins and Kuo, 2010;Herr and Grabowski, 2012;Houdijk et al, 2009;Zelik et al, 2011), further supporting the contention that the burst of ankle push-off work contributes to energy changes of the COM. When ankle push-off was increased in a prosthesis (e.g.…”
Section: Com Accelerationmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…with a bionic foot), then COM push-off also increased, in rough proportion (Herr and Grabowski, 2012;Zelik et al, 2011). For example, on average, a 7.8 J increase in prosthetic ankle push-off work resulted in an 8.0 J increase in COM push-off work for amputees wearing an energy-recycling versus conventional prosthetic foot (Zelik et al, 2011). Likewise, when ankle push-off work was reduced using a restrictive ankle-foot orthosis, COM push-off work decreased in proportion (linear regression slope ±confidence interval of 0.75±0.3, R 2 =0.59; Huang et al, 2015).…”
Section: Com Accelerationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite these limitations, our findings may have implications for patient groups with reduced push-off. Both the amount and timing of push-off appear important for energy economy, as also suggested by studies of ankle fusion (Doets et al, 2009;van Engelen et al, 2010), ankle exoskeletons (Malcolm et al, 2013;Sawicki and Ferris, 2008), ankle orthoses (Bregman et al, 2011) and lower limb prosthetics (Collins and Kuo, 2010;Zelik et al, 2011). If push-off cannot be restored, an alternative is to reduce the collision loss, for example with arc-shaped foot bottoms (Adamczyk and Kuo, 2013;Adamczyk et al, 2006;Vanderpool et al, 2008;van Engelen et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Interpretation of results from previous studies has often been hindered by confounding variables, as changes in the stiffness of a particular prosthetic component are often accompanied by changes in other notable considerations such as mass, material, or alignment [16]. Additionally, the purpose of these compliant prosthetic components is to protect the residual limb's musculoskeletal system from the forces transmitted along the limb during walking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%