Search

We aimed to determine a method for prescribing a standing prosthetic leg length (ProsL) that results in an equivalent running biological leg length (BioL) for athletes with unilateral (UTTA) and bilateral transtibial amputations (BTTA). We measured standing leg length of ten non-amputee (NA) athletes, ten athletes with UTTA, and five athletes with BTTA. All athletes performed treadmill running trials from 3 m/s to their maximum speed. We calculated standing and running BioL and ProsL lengths and assessed the running-to-standing leg length ratio (L ratio ) at three instances during ground contact: touchdown, mid-stance, and take-off. Athletes with UTTA had 2.4 cm longer standing ProsL than BioL length (p = 0.030), but their ProsL length were up to 3.3 cm shorter at touchdown and 4.1 cm shorter at mid-stance than BioL, at speed 3-11.5 m/s. At touchdown, mid-stance, and take-off, athletes with BTTA had 0.01-0.05 lower L ratio at 3 m/s (p < 0.001) and 0.03-0.07 lower L ratio at 10 m/s (p < 0.001) in their ProsL compared to the BioL of NA athletes. During running, ProsL were consistently shorter than BioL. To achieve equivalent running leg lengths at touchdown and take-off, athletes with UTTA should set their running-specific prosthesis height so that their standing ProsL length is 2.8-4.5% longer than their BioL length, and athletes with BTTA should set their running-specific prosthesis height so that their standing ProsL lengths are at least 2.1-3.9% longer than their presumed BioL length. Setting ProsL length to match presumed biological dimensions during standing results in shorter legs during running., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Running-specific prostheses (RSPs) have facilitated an athlete with bilateral transtibial amputations to compete in the Olympic Games. However, the performance effects of using RSPs compared to biological legs remains controversial. Further, the use of different prosthetic configurations such as shape, stiffness, and height likely influence performance. We determined the effects of using 15 different RSP configurations on the maximum speed of five male athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations. These athletes performed sets of running trials up to maximum speed using three different RSP models (Freedom Innovations Catapult FX6, Össur Flex-Foot Cheetah Xtend and Ottobock 1E90 Sprinter) each with five combinations of stiffness category and height. We measured ground reaction forces during each maximum speed trial to determine the biomechanical parameters associated with different RSP configurations and maximum sprinting speeds. Use of the J-shaped Cheetah Xtend and 1E90 Sprinter RSPs resulted in 8.3% and 8.0% (p<0.001) faster maximum speeds compared to the use of the C-shaped Catapult FX6 RSPs, respectively. Neither RSP stiffness expressed as a category (p = 0.836) nor as kN·m-1 (p = 0.916) affected maximum speed. Further, prosthetic height had no effect on maximum speed (p = 0.762). Faster maximum speeds were associated with reduced ground contact time, aerial time, and overall leg stiffness, as well as with greater stance-average vertical ground reaction force, contact length, and vertical stiffness (p = 0.015 for aerial time, p<0.001 for all other variables). RSP shape, but not stiffness or height, influences the maximum speed of athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The running-specific prosthetic (RSP) configuration used by athletes with transtibial amputations (TTAs) likely affects performance. Athletes with unilateral TTAs are prescribed C- or J-shaped RSPs with a manufacturer-recommended stiffness category based on body mass and activity level, and height based on unaffected leg and residual limb length. We determined how 15 different RSP model, stiffness, and height configurations affect maximum running velocity (v max ) and the underlying biomechanics. Ten athletes with unilateral TTAs ran at 3 m/s to v max on a force-measuring treadmill. v max was 3.8-10.7% faster when athletes used J-shaped versus C-shaped RSP models (p < 0.05), but was not affected by stiffness category, actual stiffness (kN/m), or height (p = 0.72, p = 0.37, and p = 0.11, respectively). v max differences were explained by vertical ground reaction forces (vGRFs), stride kinematics, leg stiffness, and symmetry. While controlling for velocity, use of J-shaped versus C-shaped RSPs resulted in greater stance average vGRFs, slower step frequencies, and longer step lengths (p < 0.05). Stance average vGRFs were less asymmetric using J-shaped versus C-shaped RSPs (p < 0.05). Contact time and leg stiffness were more asymmetric using the RSP model that elicited the fastest v max (p < 0.05). Thus, RSP geometry (J-shape versus C-shape), but not stiffness or height, affects v max in athletes with unilateral TTAs.

Running-specific prostheses enable athletes with lower limb amputations to run by emulating the spring-like function of biological legs. Current prosthetic stiffness and height recommendations aim to mitigate kinematic asymmetries for athletes with unilateral transtibial amputations. However, it is unclear how different prosthetic configurations influence the biomechanics and metabolic cost of running. Consequently, we investigated how prosthetic model, stiffness, and height affect the biomechanics and metabolic cost of running. Ten athletes with unilateral transtibial amputations each performed 15 running trials at 2.5 or 3.0 m/s while we measured ground reaction forces and metabolic rates. Athletes ran using three different prosthetic models with five different stiffness category and height combinations per model. Use of an Ottobock 1E90 Sprinter prosthesis reduced metabolic cost by 4.3 and 3.4% compared with use of Freedom Innovations Catapult [fixed effect (β) = -0.177; P < 0.001] and Össur Flex-Run (β = -0.139; P = 0.002) prostheses, respectively. Neither prosthetic stiffness ( P ≥ 0.180) nor height ( P = 0.062) affected the metabolic cost of running. The metabolic cost of running was related to lower peak (β = 0.649; P = 0.001) and stance average (β = 0.772; P = 0.018) vertical ground reaction forces, prolonged ground contact times (β = -4.349; P = 0.012), and decreased leg stiffness (β = 0.071; P < 0.001) averaged from both legs. Metabolic cost was reduced with more symmetric peak vertical ground reaction forces (β = 0.007; P = 0.003) but was unrelated to stride kinematic symmetry ( P ≥ 0.636). Therefore, prosthetic recommendations based on symmetric stride kinematics do not necessarily minimize the metabolic cost of running. Instead, an optimal prosthetic model, which improves overall biomechanics, minimizes the metabolic cost of running for athletes with unilateral transtibial amputations. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The metabolic cost of running for athletes with unilateral transtibial amputations depends on prosthetic model and is associated with lower peak and stance average vertical ground reaction forces, longer contact times, and reduced leg stiffness. Metabolic cost is unrelated to prosthetic stiffness, height, and stride kinematic symmetry. Unlike nonamputees who decrease leg stiffness with increased in-series surface stiffness, biological limb stiffness for athletes with unilateral transtibial amputations is positively correlated with increased in-series (prosthetic) stiffness.

Limited available information describes how running-specific prostheses and running speed affect the biomechanics of athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations. Accordingly, we quantified the effects of prosthetic stiffness, height and speed on the biomechanics of five athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations during treadmill running. Each athlete performed a set of running trials with 15 different prosthetic model, stiffness and height combinations. Each set of trials began with the athlete running on a force-measuring treadmill at 3 m s -1 , subsequent trials incremented by 1 m s -1 until they achieved their fastest attainable speed. We collected ground reaction forces (GRFs) during each trial. Prosthetic stiffness, height and running speed each affected biomechanics. Specifically, with stiffer prostheses, athletes exhibited greater peak and stance average vertical GRFs ( β = 0.03; p < 0.001), increased overall leg stiffness ( β = 0.21; p < 0.001), decreased ground contact time ( β = -0.07; p < 0.001) and increased step frequency ( β = 0.042; p < 0.001). Prosthetic height inversely associated with step frequency ( β = -0.021; p < 0.001). Running speed inversely associated with leg stiffness ( β = -0.58; p < 0.001). Moreover, at faster running speeds, the effect of prosthetic stiffness and height on biomechanics was mitigated and unchanged, respectively. Thus, prosthetic stiffness, but not height, likely influences distance running performance more than sprinting performance for athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations., (© 2017 The Author(s).)

Inspired by the springlike action of biological legs, running-specific prostheses are designed to enable athletes with lower-limb amputations to run. However, manufacturer's recommendations for prosthetic stiffness and height may not optimize running performance. Therefore, we investigated the effects of using different prosthetic configurations on the metabolic cost and biomechanics of running. Five athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations each performed 15 trials on a force-measuring treadmill at 2.5 or 3.0 m/s. Athletes ran using each of 3 different prosthetic models (Freedom Innovations Catapult FX6, Össur Flex-Run, and Ottobock 1E90 Sprinter) with 5 combinations of stiffness categories (manufacturer's recommended and ± 1) and heights (International Paralympic Committee's maximum competition height and ± 2 cm) while we measured metabolic rates and ground reaction forces. Overall, prosthetic stiffness [fixed effect (β) = 0.036; P = 0.008] but not height ( P ≥ 0.089) affected the net metabolic cost of transport; less stiff prostheses reduced metabolic cost. While controlling for prosthetic stiffness (in kilonewtons per meter), using the Flex-Run (β = -0.139; P = 0.044) and 1E90 Sprinter prostheses (β = -0.176; P = 0.009) reduced net metabolic costs by 4.3-4.9% compared with using the Catapult prostheses. The metabolic cost of running improved when athletes used prosthetic configurations that decreased peak horizontal braking ground reaction forces (β = 2.786; P = 0.001), stride frequencies (β = 0.911; P < 0.001), and leg stiffness values (β = 0.053; P = 0.009). Remarkably, athletes did not maintain overall leg stiffness across prosthetic stiffness conditions. Rather, the in-series prosthetic stiffness governed overall leg stiffness. The metabolic cost of running in athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations is influenced by prosthetic model and stiffness but not height. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We measured the metabolic rates and biomechanics of five athletes with bilateral transtibial amputations while running with different prosthetic configurations. The metabolic cost of running for these athletes is minimized by using an optimal prosthetic model and reducing prosthetic stiffness. The metabolic cost of running was independent of prosthetic height, suggesting that longer legs are not advantageous for distance running. Moreover, the in-series prosthetic stiffness governs the leg stiffness of athletes with bilateral leg amputations.

Background: Prosthetic stiffness likely affects the walking biomechanics of toddlers and children with leg amputations, but the actual stiffness values for prostheses are not reported by manufacturers or in standardized testing procedures., Aim: We measured axial (k A ) and torsional (k T ) stiffness from four brands of pediatric prosthetic feet (Trulife, Kingsley Mfg. Co., TRS Incorporated, and College Park Industries) over a range of foot sizes., Methods: We applied forces and torques onto prostheses with a materials testing machine that replicated those exhibited in vivo by using the kinetics measured from four non-amputee toddlers (2-3years) during walking., Findings: Across brands, k A averaged 35.2kN/m during heel loading, was more stiff during midfoot loading (121.8kN/m, P<0.001) and less stiff during forefoot loading (11.8kN/m, P=0.013). k A was similar across brands with no statistically significant effect of prosthetic foot size, with the exception of the TRS feet. Plantarflexion torsional stiffness (k T1 ), was not statistically different across brands. For every 1cm increase in foot size, k T1 increased 0.16kN·m/rad (P<0.001). College Park prostheses had 4.54kN·m/rad lower dorsiflexion torsional stiffness (k T2 ) (P<0.001) compared to other brands. For every 1cm increase in foot size, the k T2 applied on the foot increased 0.63kN·m/rad., Interpretation: The axial and torsional stiffness testing methods are reproducible and should be adopted by prosthetic foot manufacturers. Axial and torsional stiffness values of commercially available prosthetic feet should be publically reported to health practitioners to ensure evidence-based decisions and meet the specific needs of each patient with a leg amputation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The mechanical stiffness of running-specific prostheses likely affects the functional abilities of athletes with leg amputations. However, each prosthetic manufacturer recommends prostheses based on subjective stiffness categories rather than performance based metrics. The actual mechanical stiffness values of running-specific prostheses (i.e. kN/m) are unknown. Consequently, we sought to characterize and disseminate the stiffness values of running-specific prostheses so that researchers, clinicians, and athletes can objectively evaluate prosthetic function. We characterized the stiffness values of 55 running-specific prostheses across various models, stiffness categories, and heights using forces and angles representative of those measured from athletes with transtibial amputations during running. Characterizing prosthetic force-displacement profiles with a 2nd degree polynomial explained 4.4% more of the variance than a linear function (p<0.001). The prosthetic stiffness values of manufacturer recommended stiffness categories varied between prosthetic models (p<0.001). Also, prosthetic stiffness was 10% to 39% less at angles typical of running 3 m/s and 6 m/s (10°-25°) compared to neutral (0°) (p<0.001). Furthermore, prosthetic stiffness was inversely related to height in J-shaped (p<0.001), but not C-shaped, prostheses. Running-specific prostheses should be tested under the demands of the respective activity in order to derive relevant characterizations of stiffness and function. In all, our results indicate that when athletes with leg amputations alter prosthetic model, height, and/or sagittal plane alignment, their prosthetic stiffness profiles also change; therefore variations in comfort, performance, etc. may be indirectly due to altered stiffness., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In the 2012 Paralympic 100 m and 200 m finals, 86% of athletes with a unilateral amputation placed their unaffected leg on the front starting block. Can this preference be explained biomechanically? We measured the biomechanical effects of starting block configuration for seven nonamputee sprinters and nine athletes with a unilateral amputation. Each subject performed six starts, alternating between their usual and unusual starting block configurations. When sprinters with an amputation placed their unaffected leg on the front block, they developed 6% greater mean resultant combined force compared with the opposite configuration (1.38 ± 0.06 vs 1.30 ± 0.11 BW, P = .015). However, because of a more vertical push angle, horizontal acceleration performance was equivalent between starting block configurations. We then used force data from each sprinter with an amputation to calculate the hypothetical starting mechanics for a virtual nonamputee (two unaffected legs) and a virtual bilateral amputee (two affected legs). Accelerations of virtual bilateral amputees were 15% slower compared with athletes with a unilateral amputation, which in turn were 11% slower than virtual nonamputees. Our biomechanical data do not explain the starting block configuration preference but they do explain the starting performance differences observed between nonamputee athletes and those with leg amputations.