1 / 6

Daphne Wezenberg, PhD; Andrea G. Cutti, PhD; Antonino Bruno, MS; Han Houdijk, PhD

Differentiation between solid-ankle cushioned heel and energy storage and return prosthetic foot based on step-to-step transition cost. Daphne Wezenberg, PhD; Andrea G. Cutti, PhD; Antonino Bruno, MS; Han Houdijk, PhD. Aim

rclawson
Télécharger la présentation

Daphne Wezenberg, PhD; Andrea G. Cutti, PhD; Antonino Bruno, MS; Han Houdijk, PhD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Differentiation between solid-ankle cushioned heel and energy storage and return prosthetic foot based on step-to-step transition cost Daphne Wezenberg, PhD; Andrea G. Cutti, PhD; Antonino Bruno, MS; Han Houdijk, PhD

  2. Aim • Determine whether energy storage and return (ESAR) feet reduce mechanical energy dissipation during step-to-step transition. • Relevance • Decreased push-off power by prosthetic foot and inadequate roll-over shape of foot increase energy dissipation during step-to-step transition in human walking.

  3. Method • Participants: • 15 males with unilateral lower-limb amputation. • Procedure: • Ground reaction forces and kinematics were recorded while subjects walked with: • Their prescribed ESAR foot. • Solid-ankle cushioned heel foot (SACH).

  4. Results • Walking with ESAR foot (vs SACH foot): • Positive mechanical work on center of mass performed by trailing prosthetic limb was larger (33%). • Negative work performed by leading intact limb was lower (13%). • Reduced step-to-step transition cost coincided with: • Higher mechanical push-off power generated by ESAR foot. • Extended forward progression of center of pressure under prosthetic ESAR foot.

  5. Figure 1. Center of mass (COM) mechanical power profiles. COM mechanical power profiles of step during which prosthetic limb is (a) trailing limb and (b) leading limb. Dashed lines represent COM mechanical power under trailing limb, while solid lines represent mechanical power under leading limb. Hatched areas represent part over which push-off work of trailing limb was calculated, while solid areas represent amount of negative work during collision under leading limb. ESAR = energy storage and return foot, SACH = solid-ankle cushioned heel.

  6. Conclusion • Results can explain proposed improvement in walking economy with this kind of ESAR prosthetic foot.

More Related