ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Systematic Review

Authors

Fereshtenejhad   N. (1 )
Pol   F. (* )
Tahmasebi   T. (1 )
Ebrahimi   A. (1 )






(* ) Orthotic & Prosthetic Department, Rehabilitation Sciences School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
(1 ) Orthotic & Prosthetic Department, Rehabilitation Sciences School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence

Article History

Received:   October  6, 2013
Accepted:   February 22, 2014
ePublished:   April 2, 2014

ABSTRACT

Aims Since 1990 a new generation of prosthetic feet as "energy storing" in order to improve the performance and mobility of amputees entered to the markets. The aim of this study was to expansion and explanation of the concept of energy and terms relating to energy transfer as well as an overview of energy storing and returning measurement of prosthetic.
Materials & Methods In this review study, a systematic search of electronic databases, Google Scholar and PubMed was done and papers published from 1950 to 2013 were studied. Key words used were included various combinations of energy analysis, ESAR prosthetic feet and their synonym terms.
Findings The results obtained from articles classified and examined in the three domains of concepts of energy and energy-related terms, methods of energy analysis in the prosthetic feet and functional classifications and naming of the feet enable to energy storing.
Conclusion Analysis of the structure and components of prosthesis make it possible to understand how it works. One of the major issues in the analysis of energy transfer of prosthesis is the proper amount of absorption and energy release and the effect of it on amputee. Optimal performance and health of amputee is effective in designing these kinds of prosthesis.

Keywords: Prosthetic Feet, Energy Analysis, Energy Storage, Dissipated Energy, Efficiency,

CITATION LINKS

[1]Underwood HA, Tokuno CD, Eng JJ. A comparison of two prosthetic feet on the multi-joint and multi-plane kinetic gait compensations in individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation. Clin Biomech. 2004;19(6):609-16.
[2]Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki J, Fergason J. Energy storage and return prostheses: Does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis?. Clin Biomech. 2002;17(5):325-44.
[3]Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E, Shanfield SL. Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: A pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990;27(4):369-84.
[4]Geil MD. Energy loss and stiffness properties of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet. J Prosthet Orthoti. 2001;13(3):70-3.
[5]Huang GF, Chou YL, Su FC. Gait analysis and energy consumption of below-knee amputees wearing three different prosthetic feet. Gait Posture. 2000;12(2):162-8.
[6]Ventura JD, Klute GK, Neptune RR. The effect of prosthetic ankle energy storage and return properties on muscle activity in below-knee amputee walking. Gait Posture. 2011;33(2):220-6.
[7]Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: The influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture. 2002;16(3):255-63.
[8]Van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, Geurts ACH, Postema K, Geertzen JHB, Van Limbeek J. A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(4):555-70.
[9]Segal AD, Zelik KE, Klute GK, Morgenroth DC, Hahn ME, Orendurff MS, et al. The effects of a controlled energy storage and return prototype prosthetic foot on transtibial amputee ambulation. Hum Mov Sci. 2011;31(4):918-31.
[10]Hafner BJ. Clinical prescription and use of prosthetic foot and ankle mechanisms: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Orthot. 2005;17(4):5-11.
[11]Hansen A, Childress D, Knox E. Prosthetic foot roll-over shapes with implications for alignment of trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24(3):205-15.
[12]Hsu MJ, Nielsen DH, Yack HJ, Shurr DG. Physiological measurements of walking and running in people with transtibial amputations with 3 different prostheses. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999;29(9):526-33.
[13]Barr AE, Siegel KL, Danoff JV, McGarvey CL, Tomasko A, Sable I, et al. Biomechanical comparison of the energy-storing capabilities of SACH and Carbon Copy II prosthetic feet during the stance phase of gait in a person with below-knee amputation. Phys Ther. 1992;72(5):344-54.
[14]Nolan L. Carbon fibre prostheses and running in amputees: A review. Foot Ankle Surg. 2008;14(3):125-9.
[15]De Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: A demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(2):129-33.
[16]Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713-21.
[17]Moseley A, Herbert R, Sherrington C, Maher CG. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother. 2002;48(1):43-9.
[18]Hafner BJ, Czerniecki JM, Sanders JE, Fergason J. Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: A review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(1):1-12.
[19]Prince F, Winter DA, Sjonnensen G, Powell C, Wheeldon RK. Mechanical efficiency during gait of adults with transtibial amputation: A pilot study comparing the SACH, Seattle, and Golden-Ankle prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998;35(2):177-85.
[20]Michael J. Energy storing feet: A clinical comparison. Clin Prosthet Orthot. 1987;11(3):154-68.
[21]Van Jaarsveld H, Grootenboer H, De Vries J, Koopman H. Stiffness and hysteresis properties of some prosthetic feet. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1990;14(3):117-24.
[22]Ehara Y, Beppu M, Nomura S, Kunimi Y, Takahashi S. Energy storing property of so-called energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(1):68-72.
[23]Czerniecki JM, Gitter A, Munro C. Joint moment and muscle power output characteristics of below knee amputees during running: The influence of energy storing prosthetic feet. J Biomech. 1991;24(1):63-75.
[24]Prince F, Winter DA, Sjonnesen G, Wheeldon RK. A new technique for the calculation of the energy stored, dissipated, and recovered in different ankle-foot prostheses. Rehabil Eng IEEE Trans. 1994;2(4):247-55.
[25]Wing DC, Hittenberger DA. Energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70(4):330-5.
[26]Geil MD, Parnianpour M, Quesada P, Berme N, Simon S. Comparison of methods for the calculation of energy storage and return in a dynamic elastic response prosthesis. J Biomech. 2000;33(12):1745-50.
[27]Menard MR, McBride ME, Sanderson D, Murray DD. Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1992;73(5):451-8.
[28]South BJ, Fey NP, Bosker G, Neptune RR. Manufacture of energy storage and return prosthetic feet using selective laser sintering. J Biomech Eng. 2010;132(1):015001.
[29]Zmitrewicz RJ, Neptune RR, Sasaki K. Mechanical energetic contributions from individual muscles and elastic prosthetic feet during symmetric unilateral transtibial amputee walking: A theoretical study. J Biomech. 2007;40(8):1824-31.
[30]Cochrane H, Orsi K, Reilly P. Lower limb amputation Part 3: Prosthetics-a 10 year literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25(1):21-8.
[31]Postema K, Hermens H, De Vries J, Koopman H, Eisma W. Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet Part 1: Biomechanical analysis related to user benefits. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21(1):17-27.
[32]Romo HD. Specialized prostheses for activities: An update. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;361:63-70.
[33]Gitter A, Czerniecki JM, DeGroot DM. Biomechanical analysis of the influence of prosthetic feet on below-knee amputee walking. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;70(3):142-8.