COMPARISON THE POSTERIOR SHELL AND POSTERIOR LEAF SPRING SOCKET DESIGN FOR SYME’S AMPUTEE IN TERMS OF NORMAL GAIT KINEMATICS: A CASE STUDY

Wisal Shah; Bibi Uzma; Muhammad Kamran Khan

doi:10.36082/jpost.v2i1.975

Authors

Wisal Shah
Bibi Uzma Prosthetics and Orthotics Department, CHAL Foundation Islamabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Kamran Khan Prosthetics and Orthotics Department, CHAL Foundation Islamabad, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36082/jpost.v2i1.975

Keywords:

syme amputation, kinematics, PRSP

Abstract

Background: Syme’s amputee patient commonly walks on the distal end of the stump. Two types of sockets are commonly prescribed to these patients; Syme socket with either complete posterior shell or leaf spring design. The purpose of this kinematic study was to compare the effectiveness of both these socket designs in terms of different gait variables. Methods: The study design was a case study, therefore, only a single syme’s amputee was selected for data collection. Both posterior shell and posterior leaf spring sockets were made for the study participant. The study participant was given the opportunity to use each socket for 15 days before data collection in 2D gait analysis lab. The data was compared with normal gait values, so the socket which had gait parameter values was closer to the normal gait kinematic values. That was considered as the most effective socket. Results: The results of this study showed that the posterior leaf spring socket design has closer to normal Stance phase (62%) as compared to complete posterior shell design (65%). Similarly, the values of swing phase were 38% for leaf spring design and 35% for posterior shell design which clearly indicate that the posterior leaf spring socket design is more effective than posterior shell socket design.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abbas, S. M., Takhakh, A. M., Al-Shammari, M. A., & Al-Waily, M. (2018). Manufacturing and analysis of ankle disarticulation prosthetic socket (SYMES). International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(7), 560-569.

Abdulameer, A. K., & Al-Shammari, M. A. (2018). Fatigue Analysis of Syme’s Prosthesis. International Review of Mechanical Engineering, 12(03).

Al-Waily, M., Tolephih, M. H., & Jweeg, M. J. (2020, November). Fatigue Characterization for Composite Materials used in Artificial Socket Prostheses with the Adding of Nanoparticles. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 928, No. 2, p. 022107). IOP Publishing.

Day, S. (2020). Using rapid prototyping in prosthetics: Design considerations. In Rapid Prototyping of Biomaterials (pp. 325-338). Woodhead Publishing.

Di Gregorio, R., & Vocenas, L. (2021). Identification of gait-cycle phases for prosthesis control. Biomimetics, 6(2), 22.

Dillon, M. P., & Barker, T. M. (2006). Preservation of residual foot length in partial foot amputation: a biomechanical analysis. Foot & ankle international, 27(2), 110-116.

Dillon, M. P., Fatone, S., & Hodge, M. C. (2007). Biomechanics of ambulation after partial foot amputation: a systematic literature review. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 19(8), P2-P61.

Eshraghi, A., Safaeepour, Z., Geil, M. D., & Andrysek, J. (2018). Walking and balance in children and adolescents with lower-limb amputation: A review of literature. Clinical biomechanics, 59, 181-198.

Goujon, H., Bonnet, X., Sautreuil, P., Maurisset, M., Darmon, L., Fode, P., & Lavaste, F. (2006). A functional evaluation of prosthetic foot kinematics during lower-limb amputee gait. Prosthetics and orthotics international, 30(2), 213-223.

Kempfer, J., Lewis, R., Fiedler, G., & Silver-Thorn, B. (2022). Prosthetic and orthotic devices. Rehabilitation Engineering: Principles and Practice.

Kent, J., & Franklyn-Miller, A. (2011). Biomechanical models in the study of lower limb amputee kinematics: a review. Prosthetics and orthotics international, 35(2), 124-139.

Lee, S., & Chun, S. (2017). Rehabilitation of the vascular amputee. In Vascular Surgery (pp. 349-368). CRC Press.

Major, M. J., Twiste, M., Kenney, L. P., & Howard, D. (2014). The effects of prosthetic ankle stiffness on ankle and knee kinematics, prosthetic limb loading, and net metabolic cost of trans-tibial amputee gait. Clinical biomechanics, 29(1), 98-104.

Major, M. J., Raghavan, P., & Gard, S. (2016). Assessing a low-cost accelerometer-based technique to estimate spatial gait parameters of lower-limb prosthesis users. Prosthetics and orthotics international, 40(5), 643-648.

Mutlu, A., Kharooty, M. D., & Yakut, Y. (2017). The effect of segmental weight of prosthesis on hemodynamic responses and energy expenditure of lower extremity amputees. Journal of physical therapy science, 29(4), 629-634.

Pejhan, S., Farahmand, F., & Parnianpour, M. (2008, August). Design optimization of an above-knee prosthesis based on the kinematics of gait. In 2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (pp. 4274-4277). IEEE.

Shepherd, M. K., & Rouse, E. J. (2017, May). Design of a quasi-passive ankle-foot prosthesis with biomimetic, variable stiffness. In 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 6672-6678). IEEE.

Versteeg, K. V., Tucker, J. A., & Frey, E. W. (2020). Prosthetic Foot Shell, QL+.