Gait analysis of flexi-ble-shank low-cost trans-tibial prosthesis

W.C.C. Lee, Ming Zhang, P.P.Y. Chan, D.A. Boone

Research output: Journal article publicationJournal articleAcademic researchpeer-review

Abstract

The latest lower-limb prosthetic designs have been incorporated with dynamic elastic response (DER) components to enhance prosthesis flexibility, which are suggested to be beneficial to gait. Although DER prosthetic feet are preferred by most transtibial amputees and their benefits to gait are supported by some biomechanical studies, many are still utilizing the simple conventional solid ankle cushioned heel (SACH) designs because of the lower cost. The monolimb, a transtibial prosthesis with the socket and the shank molded from a single piece of thermoplastic material, perhaps is an alternative to DER feet for providing flexibility at the shank. In addition to shank flexibility, low cost and light weight are other characteristics of monolimbs. In spite of the potential benefits, little analysis has been done to examine the simple-structured monolimb prosthesis. The main aim of this study is to evaluate the gait and perception of unilateral transtibial amputees using a flexible elliptical-shank monolimb as compared to a thicker circular-shank monolimb and a conventional rigid-shank prosthesis. Results suggested that a properly designed monolimb may potentially offer similar functional advantages to the relatively expensive DER feet
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)370-377
Number of pages8
JournalIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006

Keywords

  • Amputee gait
  • Dynamic elastic response prosthetic foot
  • Flexibility test
  • Monolimb
  • Shank flexibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • General Neuroscience

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Gait analysis of flexi-ble-shank low-cost trans-tibial prosthesis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this