Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Twiste, M; Rithalia, S
Publisher: Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: R, health_and_wellbeing
Improved technology allows for more accurate gait\ud analysis to increase awareness of nonoptimized prosthetic gait\ud patterns and for the manufacture of sophisticated prosthetic\ud components to improve nonoptimized gait patterns. However,\ud prescriptions are often based on intuition rather than rigorous\ud research findings for evidence-based practice. The number of\ud studies found in the literature that are based on prosthetic\ud research regarding transverse rotation and longitudinal translation\ud is small when compared to topics regarding other types of\ud movements. Some design criteria for prosthetic components\ud described in those studies that permit transverse rotation and\ud longitudinal translation can be found in current designs. However,\ud little research has been conducted to establish their effectiveness\ud on the gait parameters and residual limb. This\ud literature review is an investigation into these motions between\ud the socket and the prosthetic foot, with particular reference to\ud gait characteristics and prosthetic design criteria.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Vitali M, Robinson KP, Andrews BG, Harris EE, Redhead RG. Amputations and prostheses. 2nd ed. London: Bailière Tindall; 1986. p. 4.
    • 2. DiAngelo DJ, Winter DA, Ghista DN, Newcombe WR. Performance assessment of the Terry Fox jogging prosthesis for above-knee amputees. J Biomech 1989;22(6,7): 543-58.
    • 3. Buckley JG, Jones FJ, Birch KM. Oxygen consumption during ambulation: comparison of using a prosthesis with and without a teletorsion pylon. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:576-81.
    • 4. Gailey RS, Lawrence D, Burditt C, Spyropoulos C, Newell C, Nash MS. The CAT-CAM socket and quadrilateral socket: a comparison of energy cost during ambulation. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993;17:95-100.
    • 5. Levens AS, Inman VT, Blosser JA. Transverse rotation of the segments of the lower extremity in locomotion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1948;30-A(4):859-72.
    • 6. Lafortune MA, Cavanagh PR, Sommer HJ, Kalenak A. Foot inversion-eversion and knee kinematics during walking. J Orthop Res 1994;12:412-20.
    • 7. Nester CJ, Linden van der ML, Bowker P. Some effects of foot orthoses on joint motion and moments, and ground reaction forces. In: Kenney L, Mickelborough J, Nester C, Rithalia S, editors. Proceedings of the Conference of Biomechanics of the Lower Limb in Health, Disease and Rehabilitation; 2001 Sep 10-12; Salford, UK. p. 134-35.
    • 8. Cappozzo A, Catani F, Leardini A, Benedetti MG, Della Croce U. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: experimental artefacts. Clin Biomech 1996; 11:90-100.
    • 9. Lamoureux LW, Radcliffe CW. Functional analysis of the UC-BL shank axial rotation device. Prosthet Orthot Int 1977;1:114-18.
    • 10. Manter JT. Movements of the subtalar and transverse tarsal joints. Anat Rec 1941;80(4):397-410.
    • 11. Subotnick SI. Biomechanics of the subtalar and midtarsal joint. J Am Podiatr Assoc 1975;65(8):756-64.
    • 12. McPoil TG, Knecht HG. Biomechanics of the foot in walking: a functional approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1985;7:69-72.
    • 13. Reischl SF, Powers CM, Rao S, Perry J. Relationship between foot pronation and rotation of the tibia and femur during walking. Foot Ankle Int 1999;20(8):513-20.
    • 14. Nester C. The relationship between transverse plane leg rotation and transverse plane motion at the knee and hip during normal walking. Gait Posture 2000;12:251-56.
    • 15. Jøergensen U, Bojesen-Møller F. Shock absorbency of factors in the shoe/heel interaction-with special focus on role of the heel pad. Foot Ankle 1989;9(11):294-99.
    • 16. Noe DA, Voto SJ, Hoffman MS, Askew MJ, Gradisar IA. Role of the calcaneal heel pad and polymeric shock absorbers in attenuation of heel strike impact. J Biomed Eng 1993;15:23-26.
    • 17. Kinoshita H, Ogawa T, Arimoto Kkuzuhara K, Ikuta K. Shock absorbing characteristics of human heel properties [abstract]. J Biomech 1992;25:806.
    • 18. Cook SD, Kester MA, Brunet ME. Shock absorption characteristics of running shoes. Am J Sports Med 1985; 13:248-53.
    • 19. Wosk J, Folman Y, Voloshin AS, Liberty S. Die Wirkung Stoßdämpfender Einlagen und Sohlen auf die axiale Belastung des Skeletts beim Fersenauftritt. Med Orthop Tech 1984;104:135-37.
    • 20. Ker RF, Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RMcN. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature 1987;325(8):147-49.
    • 21. Thomsen W. Gelöste und ungelöste Fragen und Forderungen beim Bau von Kunstfüßen. Orthop Tech 1959;5:117-19.
    • 22. Boonstra AM, Fidler V, Spits GMA, Tuil P, Hof AL. Comparison of gait using a Multiflex foot versus a Quantum foot in knee disarticulation amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993;17:90-94.
    • 23. Buchold G. Der Multiflex-Fuß: erste klinische Erfahrungen. Med Orthop Tech 1991;111:96-99.
    • 24. Edelstein JE. Current choices in prosthetic feet. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med 1991;2:213-26.
    • 25. Esquenazi A, Torres MM. Prosthetic feet ankle mechanisms. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 1991;2(2):299-309.
    • 26. Mulby WC, Radcliffe CW. An ankle-rotation device for prostheses. Biomechanics Laboratory, University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley 1960; Report No. 37.
    • 27. Staros A, Peizer E. Veterans Administration Prosthetics Center Research Report. Bull Prosthet Res 1973;10(19): 146-88.
    • 28. Schmidl H. Torsionsadapter im Kunstbein aus der Sicht des Technikers und des Amputierten. Orthop Tech 1979; 30:35-38.
    • 29. Kaphingst W. Torsionseinheiten in Beinprothesen. Orthop Tech 1977;28:85-87.
    • 30. Knoche W. Welche Vorteile bringt der Einbau eines Torsionsadapters in Beinprothesen? (Erfahrungsbericht über die Otto-Bock-Torsionsadapter 4R39 und 4R40). Orthop Tech 1979;30:12-14.
    • 31. Twiste M, Linden van der ML, Rithalia S. The effect of a torque absorber on prosthetic knee joints. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics Orthotics; 2001 Jul 1-6; Glasgow, UK. p. THO1.5.
    • 32. Twiste M, Rithalia S, van der Linden ML. Investigation into torque absorber and prosthetic knee joints in transfemoral gait. In: Kenney L, Mickelborough J, Nester C, Rithalia S, editors. Proceedings of the Conference of Biomechanics of the Lower Limb in Health, Disease and Rehabilitation; 2001 Sep 10-12; Salford, UK. p. 56-57.
    • 33. Fergason JR, Boone DA. Custom design in lower limb prosthetics for athletic activity. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 2000;11:681-99.
    • 34. Schuch M. Dynamic alignment options for the FlexFoot™. J Prosthet Orthot 1989;1(1):37-40.
    • 35. Quesada PM, VanNess WC, Rash GS, Williamson J. Below-knee amputee golf swing kinematics [abstract]. Gait Posture 2000;11:160-61.
    • 36. VanNess WC, Quesada PM, Rash GS, Williamson J. Below-knee amputee golf swing kinematics [abstract]. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000;79(2):208.
    • 37. Radcliffe CW. Prosthetic knee mechanisms for aboveknee amputees. In: Murdoch G, editor. Prosthetic and orthotic practical. London: Edward Arnold & Co; 1970. p. 225-49.
    • 38. Radcliffe CW. Above-knee prosthetics. Prosthet Orthot Int 1977;1:146-60.
    • 39. Radcliffe CW. Four-bar linkage prosthetic knee mechanisms: kinematics, alignment and prescription criteria. Prosthet Orthot Int 1994;18:159-73.
    • 40. Fisher LD, Judge GW. Bouncy knee: a stance phase flexextend knee unit. Prosthet Orthot Int 1985;9:129-36.
    • 41. Fisher LD, Lord M. Bouncy knee in semi-automatic knee lock prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 1986;10:35-39.
    • 42. Blumentritt S, Scherer HW, Wellerhaus U, Michael JW. Design principles, biomechanical data and clinical experience with a polycentric knee offering controlled stance phase knee flexion: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Orthot 1997;9(1):18-24.
    • 43. Gard SA, Childress DS, Uellendahl JE. The influence of four-bar linkage knees on prosthetic swing-phase floor clearance. J Prosthet Orthot 1996;8(2):34-40.
    • 44. Martel G. Terry Fox running prosthesis-the prosthetist's vista. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics; 1986 Jun 29-Jul 04; Copenhagen, Denmark. p. 389-93.
    • 45. Miller L, Childress D. Vertical compliance in prosthetic feet: a preliminary investigation. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics; 1995 April 2-7; Melbourne, Australia. p. 217.
    • 46. Miller LA, Childress DS. Analysis of a vertical compliance prosthetic foot. J Rehabil Res Dev 1997;34(1):52-57.
    • 47. Hsu M-J, Nielsen DH, Yack HJ, Schurr DG. Physiological measurements of gait during walking and running in transtibial amputees with conventional versus energy storingreleasing prosthesis [abstract]. Phys Ther 1997;77(5):45.
    • 48. Hsu M-J, Nielsen DH, Yack HJ, Schurr DG. Physiological measurement of walking and running in people with transtibial amputations with 3 different prostheses. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999;29(9):526-33.
    • 49. Hsu M-J, Nielsen DH, Yack J, Schurr DG, Lin S-J. Physiological comparisons of physically active persons with transtibial amputation using static and dynamic prostheses versus persons with nonpathological gait during multiplespeed walking. J Prosthet Orthot 2000;12(2):60-67.
    • 50. Yack HJ, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG. Kinetic patterns during stair ascent in patients with transtibial amputation using three different prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot 1999;11(3):57-62.
    • 51. Gard SA, Konz RJ. The influence of prosthetic shock absorbing pylons on transtibial amputee gait [abstract]. Gait Posture 2001;13:303.
    • 52. Ross J, McLaren A. A clinical evaluation of vertical shock absorption for transfemoral amputees. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics; 2001 July 1-6; Glasgow, UK. p. THO1.4.
    • 53. Stauf C. Untersuchung der Prothesen-Rotationsstoßdämpfer OS1 und US1 im Rahmen einer Biomechanik-Studie. Orthop Tech 2000;51:267-74.
    • Submitted for publication February 5, 2002. Accepted in revised form September 24, 2002.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article