Free Papers: Lower Limb Prostheses: Prosthetic Feet (AM2025-FP07)

Credit Hours

1.75 Scientific Credits

Learning Objectives

Please see the course description.

Course Description

Free Papers: Lower Limb Prostheses: Prosthetic Feet (AM2025-FP07)


Effects of Low-Profile Prosthetic Foot Compliance on Gait
Presenter:  Mark Geil, PhD – Professor and Associate Dean, Kennesaw State University
Availability of prosthetic feet is limited for individuals with long residual limbs or long proximal components. These individuals require low-profile prosthetic feet (LPF), which have a reduced build height. This study tested the effects on gait of a novel layered LPF designed to increase compliance without sacrificing strength.

Learning Objectives:

• describe the stiffness profile of conventional low-profile prosthetic feet compared to full-build-height prosthetic feet
• describe the differences in a new layered prototype low-profile foot compared to conventional low-profile feet
• understand and describe differences in gait spatiotemporal and kinematic outcomes in the prototype foot versus conventional feet

Mixed Methods Pilot Study of a Slope Adaptive Foot
Presenter:  Myrriah Laine Dyreson, CPO – Research Prosthetist Orthotist, Minneapolis VA
Presentation of a mixed methods pilot study to evaluate the influence of a novel slope adaptive foot on a custom PLUS-M short form focused on varied terrain. Measures of balance confidence and participation were also evaluated. A photo narrative methodology and semi-structured interviews were used to compliment survey data.

Learning Objectives:

• Describe positive and negative qualitative data from transtibial prosthesis users' experiences in varied environments and activities using a novel slope adaptive foot.
• describe how use of a novel slope adaptive foot influenced self-reported measures of mobility, balance confidence, and participation.
• Recognize the value of using mixed methods when exploring the user experience.

Towards Improved Mechanical Characterization of Prosthetic Feet
Presenter:  Harrison L. Bartlett, Ph.D. – CTO, Little Room Innovations, LLC
Current methods of characterizing the mechanical behavior of prosthetic feet fail to capture many salient aspects of the device functionality. This work explores the limitations of the current characterization methods and proposes an alternate approach moving forward.

Learning Objectives:

• understand the primary components of prosthetic foot stiffness
• understand the different biomechanical roles of vertical stiffness and rotational stiffness
• understand the limitations of the commonly used methods of characterizing prosthetic foot stiffness

A Human-In-Loop Optimization Approach for Personalized Ankle-foot Prosthesis Stiffness to Maximize Comfort
Presenter:  Matthew J. Major, PhD – Research Health Scientist, Northwestern Univerity and Department of Veterans Affairs
Socket comfort is of paramount importance to the mobility and satisfaction of leg prosthesis users. This study evaluated the use of residuum-socket interface pressure as a biofeedback signal to optimize prosthetic foot stiffness in real time to maximize perceived socket comfort of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users.

Learning Objectives:

• Upon completion, participant will be able to describe the role of socket comfort in prosthesis user satisfaction
• Upon completion, participant will be able to describe how a robotic prosthetic foot can be used as an optimization platform.
• Upon completion, participant will be able to describe how residuum-socket interface pressure can be used as a biofeedback signal to optimize prosthetic foot mechanical function.

Physiological Cost Index in Lower Limb Amputees: Insights from a Prosthetic Foot Feasibility Study
Presenter:  Russ Lundstrom, MS – Director of Clinical Research & Services, Otto Bock HealthCare LP
A randomized, crossover feasibility study was conducted comparing a prototype prosthetic energy storage and return foot with currently worn feet and with comparator feet. Heart rate data was collected during 6-minute walk tests, and results for the physiological cost index (PCI) are represented. While there were no significant differences in PCI between feet studied, PCI clearly differentiated between transtibial and transfemoral amputees and showed a significant correlation with BMI.

Learning Objectives:

• Upon completion, participant will be able to describe the use of the Physiological Cost Index as a proxy for energy cost of walking.
• Upon completion, participant will be able to describe the methodology for collecting heart rate data during a 6-meter Walk Test to calculate Physiological Cost Index.
• Upon completion, participant will be able to describe how the level of amputation and body mass index may affect the Physiological Cost Index.

Presenter Name(s)

• Mark Geil, PhD
• Bretta L. Fylstra, PhD
• Russ Lundstrom, MS
• Myrriah Laine Dyreson, CPO
• Matthew J. Major, PhD