Abstract

With advances in prosthetic technology, functional intent has extended past basic support toward providing increased dynamic ability for daily and athletic use. Addressing a disparity between universality and complexity in sport-grade and energy-storage-and-return (ESR) prostheses, this paper presents a pneumatic transtibial ankle prosthesis concept with semi-active control of ankle stiffness to adjust the prosthesis' properties for a wider range of gym exercises. Functional validation of the device falls under specific scenarios including the parallel back squat weightlifting exercise. The prosthesis features 30 deg sagittal ankle range of motion and provides wireless adjustment of static air pressure via a smartphone app to transition between the force and stiffness demands of walking and weightlifting. This pneumatic system includes a self-replenishing feature, providing a practical solution for the variable air pressure demands of athletics and everyday use. The mechanical, pneumatic, and control systems of the prosthesis are therefore described. Biomechanical tests including the back squat were conducted with one transtibial amputee subject. The resultant kinematic analysis validated the functional goals of the device, including an increased range of ankle rotation and variable stiffness across three different cylinder pressure settings. The kinetic profiles of the amputated leg and the natural leg also reveal an improvement in bilateral symmetry compared to a standard ESR prosthesis. This prosthesis concept has the potential to help persons with amputation participate in a wider range of activities, by improving the versatility of current ESR and sport prostheses.

References

1.
De Luigi
,
A. J.
, and
Cooper
,
R. A.
,
2014
, “
Adaptive Sports Technology and Biomechanics: Prosthetics
,”
PMR
,
6
(
Suppl. 8
), pp.
S40
S57
.10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.06.011
2.
Ottobock
,
2019
, “
1-A-1 Empower Ottobock
,” Ottobock, Duderstadt, Germany, accessed Dec. 20, 2019, https://shop.ottobock.us/Prosthetics/Lower-Limb-Prosthetics/Feet—Microprocessor/1A1-1-Empower/p/1A1-1 
3.
Össur
,
2019
, “
Ossur PowerKnee
,” Össur, Reykjavík, Iceland, accessed Dec. 20, 2019, https://www.ossur.com/en-us/prosthetics/knees/power-knee
4.
Glanzer
,
E.
, and
Adamczyk
,
P.
,
2018
, “
Design and Validation of a Semi-Active Variable Stiffness Foot Prosthesis
,”
IEEE Trans Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.
,
26
(
12
), pp.
2351
2359
.10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2877962
5.
Blatchford, Inc.
,
2019
, “
Blatchford Elan Foot
,” Blatchford, Miamisburg, OH, accessed Dec. 20, 2019, https://www.blatchfordus.com/products/elan/
6.
Ottobock
,
2019
, “
Triton Smart Ankle
,” Ottobock, Duderstadt, Germany, accessed Dec. 20, 2019, https://www.ottobock.com.tr/en/prosthetics/lower-limb/solution-overview/triton-smart-ankle/
7.
Freedom Innovations
,
2019
, “
Freedom Innovations Kinnex
,” Freedom Innovations, Irvine, CA, accessed Dec. 20, 2019, https://www.freedom-innovations.com/kinnex/
8.
Mooney
,
L. M.
,
Lai
,
C. H.
, and
Rouse
,
E. J.
,
2014
, “
Design and Characterization of a Biologically Inspired Quasi-Passive Prosthetic Ankle-Foot
,”
36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society
, Chicago, IL, Aug. 26–30, pp.
1611
1617
.10.1109/EMBC.2014.6943913
9.
Zheng
,
H.
, and
Shen
,
X.
,
2015
, “
Design and Control of a Pneumatically Actuated Transtibial Prosthesis
,”
J. Bionic Eng.
,
12
(
2
), pp.
217
226
.10.1016/S1672-6529(14)60114-1
10.
Klute
,
G.
,
Perry
,
J.
, and
Czernicki
,
J.
,
2004
, “
Variable Stiffness Prosthesis for Transtibial Amputees
,”
American Society of Biomechanics Annual Conference Abstract Submission
, Portland, OR, Sept. 8–11, p. 310.http://archive.asbweb.org/conferences/2004/pdf/310.pdf
11.
Versluys
,
R.
,
Desomer
,
A.
,
Lenaerts
,
G.
,
Van Damme
,
M.
,
Beyl
,
P.
,
Van der Perre
,
G.
,
Perraer
,
L.
, and
Lefeber
,
D.
,
2008
, “
A Pneumatically Powered Below-Knee Prosthesis: Design Specifications and First Experiments With an Amputee
,”
Second IEEE RAS and EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics
, Scottsdale, AZ, Oct. 19–22, pp.
372
377
.10.1109/BIOROB.2008.4762842
12.
BioDapt, Inc.
,
2019
, “
BioDapt VF2
,” BioDapt, Online, accessed Aug. 21, 2019, https://www.biodaptinc.com/products/vf2.html
13.
Escamilla
,
R. F.
,
Fleisig
,
G. S.
,
Lowry
,
T. M.
,
Barrentine
,
S. W.
, and
Andrews
,
J. R.
,
2001
, “
A Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Analysis of the Squat During Varying Stance Widths
,”
Med. Sci. Sports Exercise
,
33
(
6
), pp.
984
998
.10.1097/00005768-200106000-00019
14.
Braidot
,
A. A.
,
Brusa
,
M. H.
,
Lestussi
,
F. E.
, and
Parera
,
G. P.
,
2007
, “
Biomechanics of Front and Back Squat Exercises
,”
J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.
,
90
, p.
012009
.10.1088/1742-6596/90/1/012009
15.
Brockett
,
C. L.
, and
Chapman
,
G. J.
,
2016
, “
Biomechanics of the Ankle
,”
Orthop. Trauma
,
30
(
3
), pp.
232
238
.10.1016/j.mporth.2016.04.015
16.
Össur
,
2019
, “
Ossur Products: Feet
,” Össur, Reykjavík, Iceland, accessed Aug. 21, 2019, https://www.ossur.com/prosthetic-solutions/products/all-products/feet
17.
Jensen
,
J. S.
, and
Treichl
,
H. B.
,
2007
, “
Mechanical Testing of Prosthetic Feet Utilized in Low-Income Countries According to ISO-10328 Standard
,”
Prosthet. Orthot. Int.
,
31
(
2
), pp.
177
206
.10.1080/03093640701210986
18.
Mattes
,
S. J.
,
Martin
,
P. E.
, and
Royer
,
T. D.
,
2000
, “
Walking Symmetry and Energy Cost in Persons With Unilateral Transtibial Amputations: Matching Prosthetic and Intact Limb Inertial Properties
,”
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.
,
81
(
5
), pp.
561
568
.10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90035-2
You do not currently have access to this content.