Emulating the Effective Ankle Stiffness of Commercial Prosthetic Feet Using a Robotic Prosthetic Foot Emulator.

Prosthetic foot selection for individuals with lower limb amputation relies primarily on clinician judgment. The prosthesis user rarely has an opportunity to provide experiential input into the decision by trying different feet. A prosthetic foot emulator (PFE) is a robotic prosthetic foot that could facilitate prosthesis users' ability to trial feet with different mechanical characteristics. Here, we introduce a procedure by which a robotic PFE is configured to emulate the sagittal plane effective ankle stiffness of a range of commercial prosthetic forefeet. Mechanical testing was used to collect data on five types of commercial prosthetic feet across a range of foot sizes and intended user body weights. Emulated forefoot profiles were parameterized using Bezier curve fitting on ankle torque-angle data. Mechanical testing was repeated with the PFE, across a subset of emulated foot conditions, to assess the accuracy of the emulation. Linear mixed-effects regression and Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement analyses were used to compare emulated and commercial ankle torque-angle data. Effective ankle stiffness of the emulated feet was significantly associated with the corresponding commercial prosthetic feet (p <0.001). On average, the emulated forefeet reproduced the effective ankle stiffness of corresponding commercial feet within 1%. Furthermore, differences were independent of prosthetic foot type, foot size, or user body weight. These findings suggest that commercial prosthetic foot properties can be effectively mimicked by a PFE, which is the important first step toward enabling prosthesis users to quickly trial different feet using a PFE as part of prosthetic foot prescription.

Prosthetic forefoot and heel stiffness across consecutive foot stiffness categories and sizes.

Prosthetic foot stiffness plays a key role in the functional mobility of lower limb prosthesis users. However, limited objective data exists to guide selection of the optimal prosthetic foot stiffness category for a given individual. Clinicians often must rely solely on manufacturer recommendations, which are typically based on the intended user's weight and general activity level. Availability of comparable forefoot and heel stiffness data would allow for a better understanding of differences between different commercial prosthetic feet, and also between feet of different stiffness categories and foot sizes. Therefore, this study compared forefoot and heel linear stiffness properties across manufacturer-designated stiffness categories and foot sizes. Mechanical testing was completed for five types of commercial prosthetic feet across a range of stiffness categories and three foot-sizes. Data were collected for 56 prosthetic feet, in total. Testing at two discrete angles was conducted to isolate loading of the heel and forefoot components, respectively. Each prosthetic foot was loaded for six cycles while force and displacement data were collected. Forefoot and heel measured stiffness were both significantly associated with stiffness category (p = .001). There was no evidence that the relationships between stiffness category and measured stiffness differed by foot size (stiffness category by size interaction p = .80). However, there were inconsistencies between the expected and measured stiffness changes across stiffness categories (i.e., magnitude of stiffness changes varied substantially between consecutive stiffness categories of the same feet). While statistical results support that, on average, measured stiffness is positively correlated with stiffness category, force-displacement data suggest substantial variation in measured stiffness across consecutive categories. Published objective mechanical property data for commercial prosthetic feet would likely therefore be helpful to clinicians during prescription.

Comparing forefoot and heel stiffnesses across commercial prosthetic feet manufactured for individuals with varying body weights and foot sizes.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effects of prosthetic foot mechanical properties on gait of people with lower limb amputation, scant forefoot and heel stiffness data exist to help guide prosthetic foot prescription. OBJECTIVE: To measure forefoot and heel linear stiffness properties across commonly prescribed commercial prosthetic foot models and to describe variations in stiffness across feet targeted for users with different body weights and foot sizes. STUDY DESIGN: Mechanical testing of five types of commercial prosthetic feet across nine user body weight and foot size combinations. METHODS: Linear forefoot and heel stiffness (force vs. displacement) data were collected for 41 prosthetic feet. Quasistatic testing was conducted at -15 and +20 degrees to isolate loading of the heel and forefoot, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, there was a significant relationship between user body weight and both forefoot and heel stiffness, when adjusted for foot size and type ( P < 0.001). However, there were a substantial number of inconsistencies across foot type within example user body weight and foot sizes combination. Furthermore, the relative order of forefoot stiffness across foot type differed from the relative order of heel stiffness across foot type. CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistencies and differences in relative order of forefoot and heel stiffness across commercial foot type suggest the importance of publishing objective stiffness and other mechanical properties of prosthetic feet. These data can aid clinicians in better matching mechanical properties of prosthetic feet with the functional goals and abilities of prosthesis users.

Effects of shear force reduction during mechanical testing and day-to-day variation on stiffness of commercial prosthetic feet: a technical note.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical testing is the principal method used to quantify properties of commercial prosthetic feet in a controlled and standardized manner. To test feet in a mechanical testing machine without overconstraining the system, tangential shear forces must be minimized. However, there is scant published information comparing techniques for reducing shear forces during mechanical testing. Furthermore, there are no data on variability in linear stiffness across testing sessions. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques for reducing shear forces during mechanical testing of prosthetic feet and to evaluate variation in linear stiffness across testing sessions. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures. TECHNIQUE: Force-displacement data were collected at two pylon progression angles, one for the forefoot and one for the heel, and compared across three conditions: roller plate (RoPl), low-friction interface on the shoe (SB), and no method for reducing shear forces (NoSB). Data were collected for a range of commercial prosthetic foot models and sizes. Select data were collected over multiple days to assess variation over test sessions. RESULTS: Differences in stiffness between RoPl and SB test conditions ranged from -0.9% to +2.6% across foot models. By contrast, differences between RoPl and no method for reducing shear conditions ranged from -2.9% to +14.6%. Differences in linear stiffness between test sessions ranged from -2.2% to +3.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for reducing shear force in this study demonstrated roughly equivalent effects. Thus, a low-friction interface may be used as a less expensive and less complex method for reducing shear force in prosthetic foot testing. In addition, mechanical testing results were relatively consistent across multiple test sessions, lending confidence to test consistency.