Next Article in Journal
Accuracy Analysis of a Next-Generation Tissue Microarray on Various Soft Tissue Samples of Wistar Rats
Previous Article in Journal
Latest Advances on Synthesis, Purification, and Characterization of Peptides and Their Applications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/app11125591
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Foot/Ankle Prostheses Design Approach Based on Scientometric and Patentometric Analyses

by
Joel Zagoya-López
1,2,
Luis Adrián Zúñiga-Avilés
2,3,*,
Adriana H. Vilchis-González
1 and
Juan Carlos Ávila-Vilchis
1
1
Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, 50130 Toluca, Mexico
2
Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, 50180 Toluca, Mexico
3
Cátedras CONACYT, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, 50130 Toluca, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(12), 5591; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125591
Submission received: 27 April 2021 / Revised: 27 May 2021 / Accepted: 8 June 2021 / Published: 17 June 2021
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There are different alternatives when selecting removable prostheses for below the knee amputated patients. The designs of these prostheses vary according to their different functions. These prostheses designs can be classified into Energy Storing and Return (ESAR), Controlled Energy Storing and Return (CESR), active, and hybrid. This paper aims to identify the state of the art related to the design of these prostheses of which ESAR prostheses are grouped into five types, and active and CESR are categorized into four groups. Regarding patent analysis, 324 were analyzed over the last six years. For scientific communications, a bibliometric analysis was performed using 104 scientific reports from the Web of Science in the same period. The results show a tendency of ESAR prostheses designs for patents (68%) and active prostheses designs for scientific documentation (40%).

1. Introduction

Below-knee amputation (BKA) is a surgical procedure that mainly originates from trauma, diabetes, and peripheral vascular diseases [1]. While it is estimated that an average person walks about 6500 steps per day, current trends suggest that 10,000 steps per day represent a healthy lifestyle [2] for which a suitable prosthesis is necessary for a BKA patient in order to achieve a complete user reintegration to his/her pre-amputation activities. These designs should adapt to different patient’s activities.
In scientific documents, there is wide confusion with the terms prosthesis, prosthetic, and prostheses; prosthetic is the process to manufacture an artificial member (AM), prosthesis a component of the AM, and prostheses are all the components that make up an AM. From patents and scientific document searches, the term prosthesis is more commonly used; in this paper, prostheses and prosthesis will be used interchangeably.
Understanding the functioning of these prostheses is necessary to identify the foot movements: internal–external axial rotation, eversion–inversion, dorsiflexion (DF), and plantarflexion (PF), as shown in Figure 1. The forces acting on the human foot are distributed with 60% towards the heel and 40% towards the phalanges. The loads are distributed between the heel and the metatarsals to the fourth and fifth phalanges and towards the big toe to the second and third phalanges [3].
In order to improve and develop ankle/foot prostheses, it is necessary to know and understand present-day solutions to walking and running for BKA patients (and the people behind those solutions), so our designs meet both user and technical requirements. A state-of-the-art analysis of BKA prostheses is performed in this research.
Foot prostheses can be classified as follows:
  • Ankle-cushion heel (SACH-foot): This was developed in the 1950s and incorporated a compressible heel that dampens the impact on the ground while emulating a plantarflexion movement. This type of prosthesis is used for its relatively low cost and weight [4].
  • ESAR, also known as ESR, was developed in the 1980s. This type of prosthesis uses a foot-modeled plate (usually carbon fiber made) that stores elastic potential energy and progressively releases it as kinetic energy [5].
  • CESR prostheses aim to capture the energy that is dissipated during a gait impact. On the loading phase of stance, energy is stored by a spring and locked. Then, this energy is timely released during the terminal stance of walking using microelectronic components [5].
  • Active prostheses are considered state-of-the-art prostheses due to the use of actuators, microcontrollers, or other electronic devices; usually, these work using ESAR foot systems combined with some external elements such as actuators or other electronic components. These prostheses have better control and stability during a walk cycle [6].
In the next section, it is explained how the investigation was performed for both patents and scientific communications. The Result Section presents a discussion about a new prosthesis classification according to this investigation, main authors, countries, and keywords analyzed. In the discussion Section, findings and other designs of prosthesis designs are disclosed.

2. Search Method

BKA prostheses designs vary in form and functions, so in order to understand the way these designs work, extensive patents and scientific documentation searches were performed.

2.1. Used Keywords

For the patents and scientific communications searches, the following boolean operations were used under the International Patent Classification (IPC) A61F2 belonging to artificial substitutes or replacements for parts of the body: ((Ankle OR foot) AND (prosthetic OR prosthesis OR artificial)). Dates ranges were set from 2014 to 2020. For the patent analysis, 9526 documents were found. A scientific communications search provided 406 results. Figure 2 shows the results filtered on different search engines and the total number of documents obtained in every stage, among which The Lens was the most effective.

2.2. Patent Search

For the patent search, five different search engines were used, of which four were free-source, and one was paid. The databases were Derwent analytics (842 results), Espacenet (86 results), Google patents (5539 results), Patentscope (2281 results), and The Lens (778 results), with a total of 9526 results (see Figure 2).
An initial filter was applied directly to the search engines where undesired categories and keywords were removed, in addition to a manual selection of patents directly on the website.
Subsequently, data cleaning was performed using Open refine®. The second filter was applied to eliminate duplicates, IPC categories that did not correspond, and keywords such as heart, valve, elbow, Arthroplasty, and Orthosis. An individual selection of the patents was made, and the unwanted results were eliminated. The remaining patents were as follows: Patentscope (369), Google patents (390), Espacenet (55), Derwent analytics (546), and The Lens (309), resulting in 1669 patents.
Based on a third filter, the results of all databases were merged, and keywords such as knee, orthosis, and tibia were eliminated. Duplicated results were filtered, and the remaining patents were individually analyzed for a total result of Derwent analytics (70), Espacenet (12), Google patents (19), Patentscope (72), and The Lens (151), resulting in 324 patents directly related to ankle and foot prostheses. From Figure 2, it can be observed that although Google patents and Patentscope were the ones with more results, these contained a higher number of duplicates or undesired data.

2.3. Scientific Communications Search

For the literature analysis, the same keywords as for the patents’ search were applied in the Web of Science (WOS), obtaining 406 documents related to foot/ankle prostheses. The first filter was performed directly on the website, removing undesired keywords for a total of 136 documents. Subsequently, a second filter was applied, deleting repeated and undesired results. An individual document selection was made, resulting in 97 results. Finally, a bibliometric analysis was performed using data recovery software (R studio®) and a complement for bibliometric analysis (Bibliometrix®).

3. Results

3.1. Patentometric Analysis

Among the 324 results obtained, 208 results match prostheses designs, 51 match prosthetic mechanisms (motion blocking systems, aids to align prostheses, etc.), 22 match sockets, 11 match aesthetic covers, and 10 match joints. In total, 22 results are associated with methodologies (manufacturing methods, design methods, tests). Figure 3 shows these results; the number of prosthesis designs suggests a high interest in the development of new solutions for BKA amputees.
The main offices in which patents are registered are the United States (178 patents), European Office (45 patents), International Office (37 patents), and China (34 patents).
Among the results, 95 refer to foot prostheses, 65 to ankle prostheses, and 48 to a combination of both, of which 182 are removable, and 26 are osseointegrated. In this investigation, only removable prostheses are considered. Table 1 shows the selected patents, the technology used, and the type of prostheses. Among removable prostheses, 135 are mechanical or propelled with the body, hydraulic (18 results), and electronic or active (29 results). These results are distributed among ESAR, CESR, active, and hybrid (which did not match any of the aforementioned technologies or they are a combination of two or more categories). From Figure 4, it can be observed that for electronic prostheses, 17 are active, three are CERS (use a controlled energy return without the use of complex devices), one is ESAR, and eight are hybrid. For hydraulic prostheses, four use electronic components, three are based on CERS, three on ESAR, and eight are a combination of three or more categories. For mechanical prostheses, 94 use ESAR systems exclusively, 26 combine different technologies (but mostly are mechanical), 13 are CERS (energy return is controlled using only mechanical devices), and two use actuators to release the energy.
Applicants and inventors in the databases were considered. Otto Bock Health Co. and Clausen Arinbjorn V. are the main applicants with ten and eight patents, respectively, from 2014 to 2020. Figure 5 shows the main applicants for BKA prostheses.

3.2. Scientometric Analysis

After the final filter was applied, 98 scientific documents directly related to ankle/foot prostheses were selected; results are shown in Table 2. Keywords were analyzed resulting in the top 10: gait (frequency = 15 articles), prosthesis (frequency =14 articles), prosthetics (frequency =13 articles), amputation (frequency =11 articles), biomechanics (frequency =11 articles), ankle (frequency = eight articles), transtibial (frequency = eight articles) prosthetic foot (frequency = seven articles), powered prosthesis (frequency = six articles), and gait analysis (frequency = five articles). This means there is a major trend in developing prostheses devices compared with gait studies or the creation of new methodologies.
From the information obtained by the scientific documents, several aspects must be considered when designing a new prosthesis, such as aesthetics, which allows empathy between the users and their prosthesis [1], a size that permits the use of footwear, a mass corresponding to 2.5% of bodyweight [160] (literature shows an average of 2.5 kg for a 75 kg person), an ankle torque corresponding to 100–140 Nm, an ankle power between 250-300 W, and a device capable of storing and releasing energy (5–9 J)
On the authors’ part, Lefeber D. and Vanderborght B. are the top authors (11 articles each). Nevertheless, Hugh M. Herr is the most cited author in this field, with five of the most cited articles.
Table 3 shows, in order, the most cited articles, and Figure 6 shows the most relevant authors in scientific documentation.
The United States (US) is the most productive country (46 documents), followed by Belgium (seven documents) and China (five documents). Some documents showed multiple country collaborations (Figure 7). There is a clear relation between authors, journals, and countries. For example, most of the documents submitted in the US are from IEEE magazines and Plos One; meanwhile, Europe tends to apply to Prosthetic and Orthotic international and the American society of mechanical engineers (ASME).

4. Discussion

4.1. Device Classification

From the selected patents and scientific documentation, a new ankle/foot prosthesis classification has been created besides ESAR, CERS, and active, based on its components and prosthesis functions.
ESAR prostheses are categorized into five different designs (see Figure 8). CERS and active categories are merged and divided into five different categories. There are some unique designs whose components cannot be grouped; these will be discussed individually.
From the previous analyses, it can be determined that the general form for ESAR prosthesis is similar to the one illustrated in Figure 8A and mostly differs in form; sometimes, a single talon plate is aggregated, or the disposition of the plates may vary. In other cases, as in Figure 8B, the center of mass is moved, and the plates are rearranged. In the variation represented by Figure 8C, the foot plates are divided, so the prosthesis emulates eversion and inversion movements. In Figure 8D, some polymeric cushions are aggregated, replacing the use of extra plates. Figure 8E shows the usage of different types of damping systems (springs, actuators, etc.) that replace some plates. All of these designs use pyramid adapters as a connection between the prosthesis and transtibial components.
There are some variations for ESAR prostheses that use a simple plate arrangement to adjust the return of energy (see Figure 9A). Other designs use a single spring bar that regulates the energy storage/release (see Figure 9B).
For CERS prosthesis, the model by Endo Ken [129] (see Figure 10) considers a locking mechanism that preserves the energy storage in the spring. This energy is released upon the foot movement during the terminal stance. This impulse, in combination with the ESAR foot, provides necessary torque during the walk cycle.
Active prostheses can be categorized by the components they use into three types: Multi-Array Prostheses (MAP), Low Powered Prostheses (LPP), and Controlled Adaptative Stiffness (CAS). For MAP, the form is similar to the one shown in Figure 11. It uses an ESAR composite foot (E), and a DC motor (A), usually a 200 W Maxon® connected to a ball-screw transmission (C) that moves the linkage system (D) upward/downward and converts motor rotary motion into linear motion. In some cases, the motor is located instead of the spring (G) and connected to (C) using a timing belt. The linkage system (D) is in charge of connecting different mechanisms and allows plantarflexion and dorsiflexion movements; it may be composed of cables and/or pulleys, a bar mechanism, or crank sliders. F and G, depending on the prostheses, represent springs or actuators (pneumatic, electric, or hydraulic), for which torque varies from 100 to 140 Nm. Sometimes a parallel spring is aggregated due to the demanding torque requirements, and it aims to reduce the loads supported by the linkage system. Spring (G) saves energy during plantarflexion and dorsiflexion and supplements it during the swing phase. Housing (B) allocates all the electronic systems and provides stability to the system. The pyramid adapter (H) provides a connection between the transtibial components and the prosthesis. Some models have a lock mechanism, so the prosthesis could be used in a passive mode. See Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15.
Another powered prosthesis design is the LPP shown in Figure 12. It aims to reduce the necessary power required by the actuators. It contains different Footplates (G and C), which in some designs (similar to the AMP Foot 2.1 [199]) are merged into a single plate. In another case such as the VSPA Foot [245], footplates (G) are individually controlled, allowing eversion–inversion movements; the DC motor (A) is located in a Housing (J) and rotates the Ball screw transmission (B), which moves the Footplate (C) up or down, allowing plantarflexion and dorsiflexion movement. Heel (D) may be composed of a flexible plate; ankle stiffness is provided by Springs (H) and (E). Depending on the model, two Springs (H) are used when there are individually controlled Footplates, and Spring (E) is used when (G) and (C) are merged. In this case, Spring (E) is attached directly to Footplate (C). Spring (E) is elongated using a Pulley system (F) connected to the Footplate (C). The pyramid adapter (I) provides a connection between the transtibial components and the prosthesis. Designs for this model use an external power supply that is not integrated into the main prosthesis body.
CAS prostheses (see Figure 13) are mainly based on an ESAR foot (D), and in some cases complemented with a Cushion (E). The main goal of this prosthesis is the modulation of the stiffness during different stages of a gait cycle. This is granted by moving a Slider (G) along the length of the foot. Depending on the gait cycle, this slider moves forward and backward, providing the necessary stiffness to adapt to different situations such as walking, running, or climbing stairs, and it is controlled by a DC motor (C). A linkage system could be provided by a Ball screw transmission (F) or pulleys and belts. Motor (C) could be programmed to adapt to different activities. Housing (B) provides support for all the components and allows one degree of freedom (DOF) for the foot. The pyramid adapter (A) provides a connection between the transtibial components and the prosthesis.

4.2. Other Designs

Some designs do not correspond to the categories previously described. These designs are the pneumatic foot prosthesis by Huang et al. [189] (see Figure 14A), where DF and PF are managed by two artificial muscles each, so stiffness and PF torque are easier to control. It is capable of emulating 3 DOF and is controlled via a desktop computer. Another design is the two DOF cable-driven ankle–foot prosthesis by Ficanha et al. [213], where instead of using pneumatic systems, it uses pulleys and Bowden cables that are externally controlled by two motors (Maxon EC-4), see Figure 14B. Both systems have an external power source and are capable of emulating foot eversion and inversion movements.
Another case is the robotic foot prosthesis made by Lapre [229]. This device aims to actively align the foot during different stances of the gait cycle using a four-bar linkage system to rotate and translate the foot with the use of a single actuator. It works using an ESAR foot and a DC motor (Maxon® EC-30 200 W) that moves a Ball screw transmission via a belt drive. As this actuator system (motor and ball screw) contracts, it extends and shifts the foot center (see Figure 15).

4.3. ESAR Analysis

Most of the active prostheses use ESAR foot to generate enough power to initiate the gait cycle. From the patentometric and scientometric analysis, it is evident that types A, B, and C are the most used (see Figure 8). A structural analysis was performed to make a comparison between these types. Carbon-fiber footplates and a concrete floor were used. A load of 785 N was applied on the prosthesis upper faces obtaining a maximum deformation on the Y-axis of 0.63, 0.33, and 0.67 mm for types A, B, and C, respectively (see Figure 16). Meanwhile, deformations on A and C mostly occur on the ankle; B shows major flexibility along the foot. The red color shows maximum displacements on the foot connection with the body, but blue shows no deformation.
According to the structural analysis, B tends to offer major elastic energy compared to A and C, as shown in the instep colored in green/blue.
To compare the effectiveness during a walk cycle on uneven terrain, prostheses A, B, and C were analyzed using the same velocity and loads. Figure 17 shows a clear advantage of (C) over the other two models, thanks to the uneven deformation on its divided footplates, as shown for the displacement colored in red.

5. Conclusions

The number of results per database does not reflect the effectiveness of each search engine. For this research, priority was given to search engines that provided useful data such as direct links to patents, the inventor’s name, and IPC codes. Nevertheless, there are some difficulties with some of them, such as the lack of options for filtering results or IPC categories, among others. Besides, some applicants may be included in the name of their companies (for example, Herr Hugh in Massachusetts Institute of Technology); this is because some search engines only show the applicant/owner’s name instead of the inventor. In some cases, there is a lack of consistency between the author’s names in different patents (for example, Smith Keith and Smith, Keith, B.); these kinds of inconsistencies were clustered, but still, results could not be entirely precise.
The United States has 56% of patent applications and 34% of scientific documents registered. These results do not necessarily display that they produce most of the knowledge on this topic, but because of the language, most of the search engines are capable of accessing the data, unlike languages such as Spanish, Chinese, or languages spoken in India. Therefore, some designs could remain undiscovered for this investigation.
Based on the obtained results, it can be established that for this study, the effectiveness per search engine is as follows: Derwent 8.4%, Google patents 0.34%, Patentscope 3.2%, The Lens 19.9%, and Espacenet 13.95%.
The classification of the 208 prosthesis patents related to prostheses designs was obtained according to the main technology used; results show that the ESAR mechanical prosthesis is the main patent object by 44%, although claims are different for each one. All of them can be classified based on the five ESAR categories presented in this document. Outcomes also show a tendency for the use of ESAR regardless of the technology used. For 151 removable foot/ankle patent prostheses analyzed, 53% use only ESAR-type prosthesis, and 90% use ESAR in its components. From these, the more commonly used were selected and compared using Ansys, with no major differences between A and C, but for B, results show a more elastic foot thanks to its mass-centered design.
The significant trend in the use of ESAR prostheses may be because of their lower cost and greater energy efficiency. Different designs are used according to the user’s lifestyle.
The minimum amount of components found for designing an active prosthesis is a DC motor, housing, a power transmission unit, a composite foot or equivalent, an energy storage device (springs, locking systems), a linkage system, an energy power supply, and a prosthesis/socket connector. From these components, most prostheses use a Maxon® Brushless motor between 12 and 200 W. Power variations are mostly due to the gear ratio used (the more power, the lower the gear ratio), springs with stiffness between 60–445 kNm, and a Li-ion battery between 12–24 V. From these components it is especially important to consider when designing a BKA prosthesis the linkage system that needs to support most of the necessary loads, and it must be capable of tolerating at least 2 kN (for an 80 kg patient) without any failure.
Materials also play a vital role in supporting loads with 4000/5000 duty cycles per day; that is why aluminum, carbon fiber, and other composites are used in fabrication, and sometimes load reduction along the system is necessary and archived using a parallel spring arrangement.
The current development of batteries allows active prostheses to obtain enough power and charge duration without adding extra mass and weight, but for hydraulic and pneumatic prostheses, power supply currently is a problem because most of these systems are connected externally and the mass could reach up to 15 kg. Nevertheless, these systems are more efficient in mimicking human ankle movements.
For BKA prostheses, continuous growth in the development of active ones is estimated. Even though actual prostheses are capable of emulating three degrees of freedom, there is space for a complete body-integrated ankle/foot prosthesis.

Author Contributions

J.Z.-L. developed the practical aspects of this research, L.A.Z.-A. provided original schematic, exhaustive work on reviewing and editing, and supervised this research, A.H.V.-G. and J.C.Á.-V. reviewed, edited, and corrected this document. All authors participated in reviewing and writing this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The present article used free software except for Derwent analytics for the patent analysis; this software was provided by the Autonomous University of Mexico State. This research was funded by CONACYT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología), Grant 1009402.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable, because of this review did not involving humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable, because of this review did not involving humans or animals.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Biddiss, E.A.; Chau, T.T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2007, 31, 236–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tudor-Locke, C.; Bassett, D.R. How many steps/day are enough? Sports Med. 2004, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brosky, J.; Balazsy, J. Functional Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2017; pp. 581–586. [Google Scholar]
  4. Geeroms, J. Study and Design of an Actuated Below-Knee Prosthesis. Master’s Thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium, June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hafner, B.J.; E Sanders, J.; Czerniecki, J.M.; Fergason, J. Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: A review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2002, 39, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Gutfleisch, O. Peg legs andbionic limbs: The development of lower extremity prosthetics. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2003, 28, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Blatchford Products Limited. Adjustment Device for a Lower Limb Prosthesis. U.S. Patent US 200893355A, 12 May 2008. [Google Scholar]
  8. Beijing Gongdao Fengxing Intelligent Tec. Below-Knee Prosthesis Provided with Power Ankle. CN Patent CN201210410211A, 24 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Christensen, R.J. Bifurcated, Multi-Purpose Prosthetic Foot. Eur. Patent Appl. EP 2593046 A4, 19 March.
  10. Hansen Andrew, H. Bi-Modal Ankle-Foot Device. U.S. Patent US 8764850 B2, 1 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
  11. Herr, H.M. Controlling Power in a Prosthesis or Orthosis Based on Predicted Walking Speed or Surrogate for Same. U.S. Patent US 20170143516, 13 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ossur, H.F. Damping Device for a Prosthesis. U.S. Patent US 2007795138A, 13 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  13. Iversen, E.K. Energy Storing Foot Plate. U.S. Patent US 8888864 B2, 17 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hansen, A.H. Further Improvements to Ankle-Foot Prosthesis and Orthosis Capable of Automatic Adaptation to Sloped Walking Surfaces. U.S. Patent US 8696764 B2, 20 January 2012. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rifkin, J.R. Joints for Prosthetic, Orthotic and/or Robotic Devices. U.S. Patent US 8821589 B2, 11 June 1990. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jonsson, O.I. Low Profile Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 8858649 B2, 14 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rubie, E.W. Lower Limb Prosthetic Device with a Wave Spring. U.S. Patent US 8771372 B1, 2 February 2021. [Google Scholar]
  18. Miller, J.A. Modular Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 8685108 B2, 3 December 2008. [Google Scholar]
  19. Otto Bock Holding Gmbh & Co Kg. Orthopedic Foot Part. U.S. Patent US13625942A, 20 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  20. Joseph, M. Schimmels. Passive Ankle Prosthesis with Energy Return Simulating That of a Natural Ankle. U.S. Patent US 8721737 B2, 13 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  21. Otto Bock Healthcare Gmbh. Passive Orthopedic Aid in the Form of a Foot Prosthesis or Foot Orthosis. U.S. Patent CA2652727, 7 August 2009.
  22. Beijing Gongdao Fengxing Intelligent Tec. Power Below-Knee Prosthesis with Discrete Soft Toe Joints. CN Patent CN201210410878A, 17 December 2014.
  23. Universiteit Gent. Prosthetic Ankle-Foot System. International Patent WO2013EP71271A, 17 April 2014.
  24. Phillips, V.L. Prosthetic Energy Storing and Releasing Apparatus and Methods. U.S. Patent US 2014/0243998 A1, 17 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
  25. Smith, K.B. Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US20140156027, 5 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Taszreak, T. Prosthetics Using Curved Dampening Cylinders. U.S. Patent US20140249652, 6 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Duger, M. A Foot with a Vacuum Unit Activated by An Ankle Motion. Eur. Patent Appl. EP 2943166 A1, 18 November 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Falz & Kannenberg Gmbh & Co. Kg. Artificial Ankle, Artificial Foot and Artificial Leg. U.S. Patent US13979249A, 8 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
  29. Univ Bharath. Artificial Limb Prosthesis Leg below Knee & Above Knee. International Patent IN2014CH784A, 13 March 2015.
  30. Brown, C.A. Flexible Prosthetic Appliance. U.S. Patent US20150297365A1, 22 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sanders, M.R. Foot for Mobility Device. U.S. Patent US 2015/0142134 A1, 21 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rubie, E.W. High-Performance Multi-Component Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 9011554 B2, 20 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gyeonggyeongcheol. Hydraulic Actuating Unit and Artificial Foot Prosthesis System Having the Same. KR Patent KR101621610B1, 17 May 2016.
  34. Bonnet, X. Hydraulic System for a Knee-ankle Assembly Controlled by a Microprocessor. WOUS[M63], 30 January 2014. [Google Scholar]
  35. Officine Ortopediche Rizzoli Srl. Prosthesis Structure for Lower-Limb Amputees. Eur. Patent Appl. EP2010836830A, 26 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ability Dynamics Llc. Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US13642501A, 14 July 2015.
  37. Frizen, D. Prosthetic Foot. RURU[M64], 10 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Frizen, D. Prosthetic Foot. RU 2550003, 10 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Luder Mosler. Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US20150305894, 22 May.
  40. The Ohio Willow Wood Company. Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US14556755A, 26 March 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jonsson Vilhjalmur Freyr. Prosthetic Foot with a Curved Split. Eur. Patent Appl. EP 2538891, 15 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lecomte, C.G. Prosthetic Foot with Dual Foot Blades and Vertically Offset Toe. U.S. Patent US 9017421, 28 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
  43. Christensen Roland, J. Prosthetic Foot With Floating Forefoot Keel. EP 2588040 A4. EP, 29 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. 3d Systems. Prosthetic Limb. KR 101478868 B1, 2 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hawkins, R. Prosthetic System. U.S. Patent US14791982A, 29 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  46. Clausen Arinbjorn Viggo. Smooth Rollover Insole For Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 9168158 B2, 27 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mo, R. System for Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis with Active Control of Dorsiflexion-Plantarflexion and Inversion-Eversion. U.S. Patent US20150265425, 26 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  48. Goldfarb, M. Walking Controller for Powered Ankle Prostheses. U.S. Patent US20150297364, 22 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bedard, S. Actuated Prosthesis for Amputees. U.S. Patent US 9358137 B2, 7 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  50. Colvin, J.M. Additive Manufacturing Produced Prosthetic Foot. WO2014145266, 18 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ermalyuk, V. Ankle Prosthesis Assembly. RU0002596289, 10 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  52. Suslov, A. Ankle Prosthesis Assembly of Foot. RU0002587956, 27 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  53. Inha Industry Partnership Institute. Artificial Foot. KR2014113135A, 12 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  54. Woong, S.J. Artificial Foot for Sports. KR101691473BKR, 30 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sogang University. Artificial Foot Prosthesis System. KR201470575A, 17 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  56. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Artificial Human Limbs and Joints Employing Actuators, Springs, and Variable-damper Elements. U.S. Patent US15098725A, 11 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  57. Klute, G. Controlled Coronal Stiffness Prosthetic Ankle. U.S. Patent US 2016/0151175, 2 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  58. Beijing Baimtec Material Co Ltd. False Foot of Carbon -fibre Composite. CN201520753246U, 24 February 2016.
  59. Medi Gmbh & Co, Kg. Foot Prosthesis. EP 2420212 B1, 2 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mccarvill, S. Foot Prosthesis with Adjustable Rollover. EP 1788987 B1, 6 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hyun, J. Hybrid Ankle Joints. KR20160138604A, 6 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. Victhom Human Bionics Inc. Instrumented Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US13354188A, 24 March 2015.
  63. Gonzalez, R.V. Layering Technique for An Adjustable, Repairable Variable Stiffness Prosthetic Foot. WO 2016/022699, 11 February 2016. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mosler. Passive Orthopaedic Aid in The Form of a Foot Prosthetic or Orthotic. CN101569568, 9 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ásgeirsson Sigurõur. Prosthetic Ankle Module. WO2013043736, 28 March 2013. [Google Scholar]
  66. Nijman, J. Prosthetic Ankle Module. U.S. Patent US 9439786, 13 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  67. Arinbjorn, C. Prosthetic Ankle: A Method of Controlling Based on Adaptation to Speed. U.S. Patent US20170304083, 30 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
  68. Holgate, M.A. Prosthetic Device and Method with Compliant Linking Member and Actuating Linking Member. U.S. Patent US20160242938, 28 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ability Dynamics Llc. Prosthetic Foot. AU2015214156, 11 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ability Dynamics Llc. Prosthetic Foot. CA2965997, 21 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  71. Doddroe, J.L. Prosthetic Foot. US 9351853 BUS, 31 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  72. Starker, F. Prosthetic Foot. EP 3052058 AEP, 10 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sulprizio, M.S. Prosthetic Foot. EP 1663082 BEP, 27 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kim, S.Y. Prosthetic Foot and Manufacturing Method Thereof. KR1020160127875, 5 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ossur, H. Prosthetic Vacuum System. U.S. Patent US2006640150A, 16 February 2016. [Google Scholar]
  76. Howell. Responsive Prosthesis. WO2016089790, 9 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  77. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. A Prosthesis or Orthosis Comprising A Hinge Joint System For Functionally Assisting, Enhancing And/or Replacing a Hinge Joint of A Human or Animal Subject. U.S. Patent US15327277A, 15 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  78. Sogang University. Active Lower Leg Prosthesis Device. KR201542990A, 8 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rubie, E.W. Apparatus and Method for A Split Toe Blade. U.S. Patent US 2017/0281372 A1, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  80. Nanjing Institute of Technology. Artificial Ankle Joint Limb Based on Flexible Driver. CN201710468178A, 17 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hornos, P. Artificial Foot. EP 2938298 BEP, 7 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
  82. Otto Bock Holding Gmbh & Co, Kg. Artificial Foot and Method For Controlling The Movement Thereof. U.S. Patent US14611976A, 7 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
  83. Lin, Y. Bow-shaped Ankle Structure Combined Material Artificial Limb Foot Core. CN206342567, 21 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  84. Rouse Elliott, J. Catapult Ankle and Related Methods. U.S. Patent US 2017/0105851, 20 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  85. Millinav. Dispositif De Prothese De Cheville Controle Par Une Prothese De Genou Motorisee Sensible A La Pesanteur. FR2016886A, 1 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  86. Martin, J.J. Electronically Controlled Prosthetic System. U.S. Patent US15092231A, 3 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sun, Y. Fine Energy Storage Foot of Carbon. CN206080773, 12 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  88. Kranner, W. Foot Prosthesis. U.S. Patent US 9844450 B2, 19 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lecomte, C.G. Foot Prosthesis with Resilient Multi-axial Ankle. U.S. Patent US 9668887 B2, 6 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  90. Palmer, M. Microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Ankle System for Footwear And Terrain Adaptation. EP 2842522 B1, 5 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  91. Guangzhou Kangmeite Prostheses Co Ltd. Novel Fine Prosthetic Foot of Comfortable Energy Storage Carbon. CN201621018836U, 5 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ken Dall Enterprise Co. Ltd. Oil Pressure Ankle Joint. CN201610388330A, 12 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lecomte, C.G. Overmould Attachments for Prosthetic Foot. EP2956094 B1, 11 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  94. Ossur, H. Prosthetic Ankle and Method of Controlling Same Based on Adaptation to Speed. U.S. Patent US15648988A, 26 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  95. Smith, K.B. Prosthetic Foot. AU 2016/206637 A1, 18 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  96. Otto Bock Holding Gmbh & Co. Kg. Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US15305633A, 23 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
  97. Sun, Y. Prosthetic Foot. CN206080774, 12 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  98. Cheng, Y.T. Prosthetic Foot Structure. TW I565456 B, 11 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
  99. Christensen, R.J. Prosthetic Foot with Energy Transfer Medium Including Variable Viscosity Fluid. EP 1487378 B1, 18 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
  100. Hermann, M. Prosthetic Foot, System of a Prosthetic Foot and A Shoe, and Method for Adapting the Heel Height of a Prosthetic Foot. RU0002686292, 24 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  101. Lincoln, L.S. Prosthetic Joint with Mechanical Response System to Position and Rate of Change. CN107205831, 26 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  102. Arinbjorn, V.C. Prosthetic Sport Feet. EP 3099273 AEP, 18 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  103. Li, J. Shock Attenuation Energy -absorbing Prosthetic Foot Foot Core. CN206342567, 21 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  104. Wang, X. Single-freedom-degree Active Type Ankle Joint Artificial Limb Based on Closed Type Hydraulic Driving System. CN107397615A, 20 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
  105. Vanderbilt University. Systems And Control Methodologies for Improving Stability in Powered Lower Limb Devices. US13508175A, 5 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  106. Arizona Board of Regents Acting for and on Behalf of Northern Arizona University. Actuator Control System and Related Methods. U.S. Patent US14880118A, 18 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  107. Nan, Y. Yan Nan. Ankle-foot Prosthesis Device. CN107874875, 6 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  108. Morales, M.; Heli, M. Articulated Orthopaedic Foot with Shock Absorption, Which Prevents the Impact Produced in Each Foot-loading Cycle When Walking or Running, Providing Natural Movement and Stability for the User. WO 2018/163050 A4, 15 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lindhe, C. Artificial Foot. U.S. Patent US 2018/0263792 A4, 15 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  110. Rouse, E.J. Biomimetic and Variable Stiffness Ankle System and Related Methods. U.S. Patent US 2018/0092761 A1, 5 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  111. Xing, Z. Bionic Prosthetic Mechanical Foot with Parallel Joints. CN108714065, 30 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  112. Palmer, J.R. Clearance Enhancer for Lower Limb Prosthesis. U.S. Patent US 10123886 B2, 12 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  113. Bonawei Rehabilitation Equip Xiamen Co. Energy Storage Foot. CN201720513686U, 26 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  114. Otto Bock Holding Gmbh & Co Kg. Foot Prosthesis. US15570232A, 10 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
  115. Kaltenborn, S. Foot Prosthesis. US20180125679, 1 September 2020. [Google Scholar]
  116. Penot, B. Foot Prosthesis Has Blade. FR3063887AFR, 21 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
  117. Habecker, M.J. Foot Prosthesis with Dymic Variable Keel Resistance. U.S. Patent US20180256368AUS, 29 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  118. Habecker, M.J. Foot Prosthesis with Dynamic Variable Keel Resistance. US2018256368, 13 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
  119. Cheng, C. Hydraulic Ankle. DE102016125081BDE, 30 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
  120. Dall, K.; Enterprise Co. Ltd. Hydraulic Ankle Joint. U.S. Patent US15391785A, 24 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  121. Boiten, H. Jointless Prosthetic Foot. EP EP 3142612 B1, 18 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  122. Ye, Y. Light Intelligent Energy-storage Energy-releasing Ankle Prosthesis. CN CN107536662, 5 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
  123. Bartlett, B. Limb Prosthesis System and Method. U.S. Patent US 9895239 B2, 20 February 2018. [Google Scholar]
  124. Goldfarb, M. Linear Actuator for Asymmetric Power Generation and Dissipation. WO WO 2018/132806 A1, 19 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  125. Graham, H. Lower Limb Prosthesis Comprising a Hydraulic Damping and A Vacuum Generating Mechanism. US20180036149, 8 February 2018. [Google Scholar]
  126. Maitland, M.E. Medial-lateral Stabilizing Prosthetic Ankle/foot For Angled and Rough Ground Gait. U.S. Patent US 9949849 B2, 24 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  127. Clausen, A.V. Method for Operating a Prosthetic Ankle. EP2007752020A, 25 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  128. Fairley, J. Modular Lower Limb Prosthesis System. U.S. Patent US 2018/0289511 A1, 11 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  129. Endo, K. Movement Support Apparatus. EP 2823792 B1, 21 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  130. Lenzi, T. Polycentric Powered Ankle Prosthesis. WO 2017/222623, 8 February 2018. [Google Scholar]
  131. Huang, Q. Powered Artificial Ankle Based on Electro-hydraulic Direct Drive Technology. CN20181031, 4 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
  132. Gudmundsson, I. Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices Having Magnetorheological Elastomer Spring with Controllable Stiffness. EP 2753270 B1, 24 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  133. Moser, D. Prosthetic Ankle and Foot Combination. US 9132023 B2, 15 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
  134. Fillauer Euro Ab. Prosthetic Device. U.S. Patent US15690780A, 1 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  135. Ramirez, C. Prosthetic Device. EP 3290006 A1, 7 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  136. Bonacini, D. Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 2018/0116825, 3 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
  137. Smith, K. Prosthetic Foot. WO2016115395, 21 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  138. Willowwood Global Llc. Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US14989833A, 6 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  139. Zamora, D.A. Prosthetic Foot. EP 2560584 B1, 21 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  140. Gunnarssonn, R.O. Prosthetic Foot with Hybrid Layup. U.S. Patent US 9907676 B2, 6 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  141. Kramer, L.D. Prosthetic Foot with Modular Construction. U.S. Patent US 2018/0098863, 12 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  142. Zhang, J. Shank Prosthesis Provided with Double Foot Sole Plates. CN107647949, 2 February 2018. [Google Scholar]
  143. Prost, V. Spring Design for Prosthetic Applications. WO 2018/208714 A1, 15 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  144. Vanderbilt University. Stair Ascent and Descent Control for Powered Lower Limb Devices. EP2013713653A, 18 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  145. Jonsson, O.I. Tapered Flex Plate for Prosthetic Foot. US 2018/0296370 A1, 18 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  146. Univ Northwestern Polytechnical. Variable Bar Length Gear Five-bar Mechanism Active and Passive Ankle Artificial Limb. CN201810475980A, 20 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  147. Sandahl, D. Variable Stiffness Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 10034782 B2, 31 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  148. Smith, J.R. Adjustable Stiffness Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 2019/0015224 A1, 17 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
  149. Hansen, A.H. Ankle-foot Prosthesis for Automatic Adaptation to Sloped Walking Surfaces. US20190254844, 22 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  150. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Artificial Ankle-foot System with Spring, Variable-damping, And Series-elastic Actuator Components. U.S. Patent US14283323A, 17 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  151. Schlafly, M.K. Biomimetic Prosthetic Device. U.S. Patent US 10292840 B2, 21 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  152. Nelson, R.H. Carbon Fiber Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 2019/0142610 A1, 16 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  153. Gene, P. Compression Heel Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 2019/0192314 A1, 27 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  154. Pusch, M. Foot Prosthesis. RU 2688715 C2, 22 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  155. Wang, Z. Hydraulic Pressure Energy Storage Prosthetic Foot. CN208447864, 1 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
  156. Poulson, A.I. Hydraulic Prosthetic Ankle. EP 3272316 B1, 31 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
  157. Wang, J. Low-energy Artificial Limb. CN109758277, 17 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  158. Blatchford Products Limited. Lower Limb Prosthesis. U.S. Patent US14416509A, 7 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
  159. Amiot, D. Passive and Slope Adaptable Prosthetic Foot Ankle. WO 2019/028388, 7 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
  160. Hugh, M. Powered Ankle-foot Prosthesis. US20190175365, 13 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  161. Allermann, R. Prosthesis and Prosthetic Foot Adapter. WO 2019/007678 A1, 10 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
  162. Moser, D. Prosthetic Ankle Joint Mechanism. U.S. Patent US 9999526 B2, 19 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  163. Adamczyk, P.G. Prosthetic Apparatus and Method Therefor. US20190046335, 14 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
  164. Albertson, A.K. Prosthetic Feet Having Heel Height Adjustability. WO2018102609, 7 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  165. Friesen, J. Prosthetic Foot. EP 3139871 B1, 17 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
  166. Grosskopf, S. Prosthetic Foot. CA 2975364 C, 30 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  167. Guangdong Lanwan Intelligent Technology. Prosthetic Foot. CN201811171590A, 15 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
  168. Jo, S.H. Prosthetic Foot. WO2019117389, 20 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  169. Pusch, M. Prosthetic Foot. US2019070022, 7 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
  170. Kim, H.C. Prosthetic Foot Having a Function of Ancle. KR 2019002, 11 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
  171. Mosler, L. Prosthetic Foot Insert and Prosthetic Foot. U.S. Patent US 10299942 B2, 28 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  172. Kim, H.C. Prosthetic Foot That Toe Part Can Rotatate. KR20190025152, 3 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  173. Clausen, A.V. Prosthetic Foot with Enhanced Stability and Elastic Energy Return. US20190224026, 25 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
  174. Clausen, A.V. Prosthetic Foot with Removable Flexible Members. EP 3128958 BEP, 7 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  175. Day Jesse. Prosthetic Foot with Spaced Spring Elements. U.S. Patent US 2019/0125552 A1, 2 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  176. Radspieler Andreas. Prosthetic Foot, And Prosthesis for A Lower Extremity. US 2019/0231561 A1, 1 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  177. Blatchford Products Limited. A Prosthetic Ankle and Foot Combination. EP 3427701 B1, 19 February 2020. [Google Scholar]
  178. Pm Ingenierie Et Design. Foot Prosthesis Comprising a Damping Element. WO2018166905, 20 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
  179. Blatchford Products Limited. Lower Limb Prosthesis. WO2012104591, 9 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
  180. Klopf, J. Oberschenkelprothesenpassteil. DE102018112724, 29 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  181. Université Catholique De Louvain. Prosthesis Or Orthosis. WO2020039063, 27 February 2020. [Google Scholar]
  182. Hein, E. Prosthetic Ankle Assembly and Ankle-foot System Comprising Same. WO2019245981, 26 December 2019. [Google Scholar]
  183. Haun, D.G. Prosthetic External Fixation Assembly for Post-amputee Ambulation. US20180303635, 26 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  184. Comité International De La Croix-rouge (cicr). Prosthetic Foot. WO2020012319, 16 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
  185. Xiborg Inc. Prosthetic Foot and Connector for Prosthetic Foot. WO2020044519, 5 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
  186. Instituto Tecnológico José Mario Molina Pasquel Y Henriquez. Prótesis Mecánica De Pie. WO2019194671, 10 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
  187. Gosakan, H.S. Pyramidal Prosthetic Foot. WO2020012504, 16 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
  188. Mcnicholas, S.K. Single Axis Ankle-foot Prosthesis with Mechanically Adjustable Range of Motion. WO2019241654, 19 December 2019. [Google Scholar]
  189. Huang, S.; Wensman, J.P.; Ferris, D. An experimental powered lower limb prosthesis using proportional myoelectric control. J. Med Devices 2014, 8, 024501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Sun, J.; Fritz, J.M.; Del Toro, D.R.; Voglewede, P.A. Amputee subject testing protocol, results, and analysis of a powered transtibial prosthetic device. J. Med Devices 2014, 8, 041007–410076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Wezenberg, D.; Cutti, A.G.; Bruno, A.; Houdijk, H. Differentiation between solid-ankle cushioned heel and energy storage and return prosthetic foot based on step-to-step transition cost. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2014, 51, 1579–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Nickel, E.; Sensinger, J.; Hansen, A. Passive prosthetic ankle-foot mechanism for automatic adaptation to sloped surfaces. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2014, 51, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Mulder, I.A.; Holtslag, H.R.; Beersma, L.F.A.; Koopman, B.F.J.M. Keep moving forward: A new energy returning prosthetic device with low installation height after Syme or Pirogoff amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2014, 38, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Safaeepour, Z.; Esteki, A.; Ghomshe, F.T.; E Mousavai, M. Design and development of a novel viscoelastic ankle-foot prosthesis based on the human ankle biomechanics. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2014, 38, 400–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Safaeepour, Z.; Esteki, A.; Ghomshe, F.T.; Abu Osman, N.A. Quantitative analysis of human ankle characteristics at different gait phases and speeds for utilizing in ankle-foot prosthetic design. Biomed. Eng. Online 2014, 13, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Zhu, J.; Wang, Q.; Wang, L. On the design of a powered transtibial prosthesis with stiffness adaptable ankle and toe joints. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 61, 4797–4807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Ko, C.-Y.; Kim, S.-B.; Kim, J.K.; Chang, Y.; Kim, S.; Ryu, J.; Mun, M. Comparison of ankle angle adaptations of prosthetic feet with and without adaptive ankle angle during level ground, ramp, and stair ambulations of a transtibial amputee: A pilot study. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2014, 15, 2689–2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Ko, C.-Y.; Kim, S.-B.; Chang, Y.; Cho, H.; Ryu, J.; Mun, M. Biomechanical features of level walking by transtibial amputees wearing prosthetic feet with and without adaptive ankles. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2016, 30, 2907–2914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Cherelle, P.; Junius, K.; Grosu, V.; Cuypers, H.; VanderBorght, B.; Lefeber, D. The AMP-Foot 2.1: Actuator design, control and experiments with an amputee. Robotica 2014, 32, 1347–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Cherelle, P.; Grosu, V.; Flynn, L.; Junius, K.; Moltedo, M.; Vanderborght, B.; Lefeber, D. The Ankle Mimicking Prosthetic Foot 3—Locking mechanisms, actuator design, control and experiments with an amputee. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2017, 91, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Simon, A.M.; Ingraham, K.A.; Fey, N.P.; Finucane, S.B.; Lipschutz, R.D.; Young, A.J.; Hargrove, L.J. Configuring a powered knee and ankle prosthesis for transfemoral amputees within five specific ambulation modes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Simon, A.M.; Fey, N.P.; Ingraham, K.A.; Finucane, S.B.; Halsne, E.G.; Hargrove, L.J. Improved weight-bearing symmetry for transfemoral amputees during standing up and sitting down with a powered knee-ankle prosthesis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016, 97, 1100–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Simon, A.M.; Ingraham, K.A.; Spanias, J.A.; Young, A.J.; Finucane, S.B.; Halsne, E.G.; Hargrove, L.J. Delaying ambulation mode transition decisions improves accuracy of a flexible control system for powered knee-ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017, 25, 1164–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Caputo, J.M.; Collins, S.H. A universal ankle–foot prosthesis emulator for human locomotion experiments. J. Biomech. Eng. 2014, 136, 035002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  205. Asencio, J.-G.; Leonardi, C.; Schved, J.-F.; Di Schino, M. Critical study and medium term results of 40 ankle prostheses in 27 patients with hemophilia. Haemophilia 2015, 21, E536. [Google Scholar]
  206. Bonnet, X.; Adde, J.N.; Blanchard, F.; Gedouin-Toquet, A.; Eveno, D. Evaluation of a new geriatric foot versus the Solid Ankle Cushion Heel foot for low-activity amputees. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2015, 39, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Fairhurst, S.R.; Lin, X.; Nickel, E.A.; Hansen, A.H.; Ferguson, J.E. Sensor based control of a bimodal ankle–foot prosthesis with a smart phone interface. J. Med Devices 2015, 9, 030907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Realmuto, J.; Klute, G.K.; Devasia, S. Nonlinear passive cam-based springs for powered ankle prostheses. J. Med Devices 2015, 9, 011007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Hessel, A.L.; Tahir, U.; Petak, J.L.; Lemoyne, R.C.; Tester, J.; Nishikawa, K.C. A powered ankle-foot prosthesis with a neuromuscular based control algorithm can successfully mimic human walking. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2015, 55, E274. [Google Scholar]
  210. Rouse, E.J.; Villagaray-Carski, N.C.; Emerson, R.W.; Herr, H.M. Design and testing of a bionic dancing prosthesis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Flynn, L.; Geeroms, J.; Fabian, R.J.; VanderBorght, B.; Vitiello, N.; Lefeber, D. Ankle–knee prosthesis with active ankle and energy transfer: Development of the CYBERLEGs Alpha-Prosthesis. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2015, 73, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Ficanha, E.M.; Ribeiro, G.A.; Dallali, H.; Rastgaar, M. Design and preliminary evaluation of a two DOFs cable-driven ankle–foot prosthesis with active dorsiflexion–plantarflexion and inversion–eversion. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2016, 4, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  213. Rice, J.J.; Schimmels, J.M.; Huang, S. Design and evaluation of a passive ankle prosthesis with powered push-off. J. Mech. Robot. 2015, 8, 021012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Rice, J.J.; Schimmels, J.M. Evaluation of a two degree of freedom passive ankle prosthesis with powered push-off. J. Med. Devices 2015, 9, 030915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Jimenez-Fabian, R.; Geeroms, J.; Flynn, L.; Vanderborght, B.; Lefeber, D. Reduction of the torque requirements of an active ankle prosthesis using a parallel spring. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2017, 92, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Shultz, A.H.; Lawson, B.E.; Goldfarb, M. Running with a powered knee and ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2015, 23, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Shultz, A.H.; Lawson, B.E.; Goldfarb, M. Variable cadence walking and ground adaptive standing with a powered ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2016, 24, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Shultz, A.H.; Goldfarb, M. A unified controller for walking on even and uneven terrain with a powered ankle pros-thesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 788–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Kim, M.; Collins, S.H. Once-per-step control of ankle-foot prosthesis push-off work reduces effort associated with balance during walking. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2015, 12, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  220. Collins, S.H.; Kim, M.; Chen, T.; Chen, T. An ankle-foot prosthesis emulator with control of plantarflexion and inver-sion-eversion torque. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2018, 34, 1183–1194. [Google Scholar]
  221. Ingraham, K.A.; Fey, N.P.; Simon, A.M.; Hargrove, L.J. Assessing the relative contributions of active ankle and knee assistance to the walking mechanics of transfemoral amputees using a powered prosthesis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Quesada, R.E.; Caputo, J.M.; Collins, S.H. Increasing ankle push-off work with a powered prosthesis does not necessarily reduce metabolic rate for transtibial amputees. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 3452–3459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  223. Delussu, A.S.; Paradisi, F.; Brunelli, S.; Pellegrini, R.; Zenardi, D.; Traballesi, M. Comparison between SACH foot and a new multiaxial prosthetic foot during walking in hypomobile transtibial amputees: Physiological responses and functional assess-ment. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2016, 52, 304–309. [Google Scholar]
  224. Khaghani, A.; Takamjani, I.E.; Layeghi, F. Tehran silicon partial foot prosthesis new method of making silicon partial foot prosthesis. Int. J. Adv. Biotechnol. Res. 2016, 7, 2045–2057. [Google Scholar]
  225. Narayanan, G.; Gnanasundaram, S.; Ranganathan, M.; Ranganathan, R.; Gopalakrishna, G.; Das, B.N.; Mandal, A.B. Improved design and development of a functional moulded prosthetic foot. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2014, 11, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Isaacs, M.R.; Ward, J.; Mcgowan, C.P.; Lee, D. Walking dynamics and speed effects in persons wearing a passive foot-ankle prosthesis. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2016, 56, E100. [Google Scholar]
  227. Grimmer, M.; Holgate, M.; Holgate, R.; Boehler, A.; Ward, J.; Hollander, K.; Sugar, T.; Seyfarth, A. A powered prosthetic ankle joint for walking and running. Biomed. Eng. Online 2016, 15, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  228. LaPrè, A.K.; Umberger, B.R.; Sup, F.C. A Robotic ankle–foot prosthesis with active alignment. J. Med. Devices 2016, 10, 025001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Rábago, C.A.; Whitehead, J.A.; Wilken, J.M. Evaluation of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis during slope ascent gait. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  230. Ettinger, S. Ankle joint prosthesis worse outcome by overweight? Z. Orthop. Unfall. 2016, 154, 15. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  231. Esposito, E.R.; Whitehead, J.M.A.; Wilken, J.M. Step-to-step transition work during level and inclined walking using passive and powered ankle–foot prostheses. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2016, 40, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Esposito, E.R.; Lipe, D.H.; A Rábago, C. Creative prosthetic foot selection enables successful ambulation in stiletto high heels. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2018, 42, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Esposito, E.R.; Miller, R.H. Maintenance of muscle strength retains a normal metabolic cost in simulated walking after transtibial limb loss. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0191310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  234. Lacraz, A.; Armand, S.; Turcot, K.; Carmona, G.; Stern, R.; Borens, O.; Assal, M. Comparison of the Otto Bock solid ankle cushion heel foot with wooden keel to the low-cost CR-Equipements solid ankle cushion heel foot with polypropylene keel: A randomized prospective double-blind crossover study assessing patient satisfaction and energy. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2017, 41, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Gardiner, J.; Bari, A.Z.; Kenney, L.; Twiste, M.; Moser, D.; Zahedi, S.; Howard, D. Performance of optimized prosthetic ankle designs that are based on a hydraulic variable displacement actuator (VDA). IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017, 25, 2418–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Ke, M.-J.; Huang, K.-C.; Lee, C.-H.; Chu, H.-Y.; Wu, Y.-T.; Chang, S.-T.; Chiang, S.-L.; Su, K.-C. Influence of three different curvatures flex-foot prosthesis while single-leg standing or running: A finite element analysis study. J. Mech. Med. Biol. 2016, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Tao, Z.; Ahn, H.-J.; Lian, C.; Lee, K.-H.; Lee, C.-H. Design and optimization of prosthetic foot by using polylactic acid 3D printing. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2017, 31, 2393–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Lee, J.D.; Mooney, L.M.; Rouse, E.J. Design and characterization of a quasi-passive pneumatic foot-ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017, 25, 823–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Mazumder, O.; Kundu, A.; Lenka, P.; Bhaumik, S. Design of speed adaptive myoelectric active ankle prosthesis. Electron. Lett. 2017, 53, 1508–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Anonymous. Bionic foot design: An inside view. Electron. Lett. 2017, 53, 1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Weerakkody, T.H.; Lalitharatne, T.D.; Gopura, R.A.R.C. Adaptive foot in lower-limb prostheses. J. Robot. 2017, 2017, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  242. Koehler-McNicholas, S.R.; Nickel, E.A.; Medvec, J.; Barrons, K.; Mion, S.; Hansen, A.H. The influence of a hydraulic prosthetic ankle on residual limb loading during sloped walking. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  243. Koehler-McNicholas, S.R.; Slater, B.C.S.; Koester, K.; Nickel, E.A.; Ferguson, J.E.; Hansen, A.H. Bimodal ankle-foot prosthesis for enhanced standing stability. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  244. Shepherd, M.K.; Rouse, E.J. The VSPA Foot: A quasi-passive ankle-foot prosthesis with continuously variable stiffness. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017, 25, 2375–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  245. Dong, D.; Ge, W.; Liu, S.; Xia, F.; Sun, Y. Design and optimization of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis using a geared five-bar spring mechanism. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2017, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  246. Dong, D.; Convens, B.; Sun, Y.; Ge, W.; Cherelle, P.; VanderBorght, B. The effects of variable mechanical parameters on peak power and energy consumption of ankle-foot prostheses at different speeds. Adv. Robot. 2018, 32, 1229–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Lechler, K.; Frossard, B.; Whelan, L.; Langlois, D.; Müller, R.; Kristjansson, K. Motorized biomechatronic upper and lower limb prosthesesd-clinically relevant outcomes. PM&R 2018, 10, S207–S219. [Google Scholar]
  248. Eslamy, M.; Alipour, K. Synergy-based gaussian process estimation of ankle angle and torque: Conceptualization for high level controlling of active robotic foot prostheses/orthoses. J. Biomech. Eng. 2019, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  249. Jayaraman, C.; Hoppe-Ludwig, S.; Deems-Dluhy, S.; McGuire, M.; Mummidisetty, C.; Siegal, R.; Naef, A.; Lawson, B.E.; Goldfarb, M.; Gordon, K.E.; et al. Impact of powered knee-ankle prosthesis on low back muscle mechanics in transfemoral amputees: A case series. Front. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  250. Hahn, A.; Sreckovic, I.; Reiter, S.; Mileusnic, M. First results concerning the safety, walking, and satisfaction with an innovative, microprocessor-controlled four-axes prosthetic foot. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2018, 42, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  251. Armannsdottir, A.; Tranberg, R.; Halldorsdottir, G.; Briem, K. Frontal plane pelvis and hip kinematics of transfemoral amputee gait. Effect of a prosthetic foot with active ankle dorsiflexion and individualized training—A case study. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2017, 13, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  252. Zelik, K.E.; Honert, E.C. Ankle and foot power in gait analysis: Implications for science, technology and clinical assessment. J. Biomech. 2018, 75, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Gardinier, E.S.; Kelly, B.M.; Wensman, J.; Gates, D.H. A controlled clinical trial of a clinically-tuned powered ankle prosthesis in people with transtibial amputation. Clin. Rehabil. 2017, 32, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Heitzmann, D.W.; Salami, F.; De Asha, A.R.; Block, J.; Putz, C.; Wolf, S.I.; Alimusaj, M. Benefits of an increased prosthetic ankle range of motion for individuals with a trans-tibial am-putation walking with a new prosthetic foot. Gait Posture 2018, 64, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Montgomery, J.R.; Grabowski, A. Use of a powered ankle–foot prosthesis reduces the metabolic cost of uphill walking and improves leg work symmetry in people with transtibial amputations. J. R. Soc. Interface 2018, 15, 20180442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  256. Preißler, S.; Dietrich, C.; Seifert, S.; O Hofmann, G.; Miltner, W.H.R.; Weiss, T. The feeling prosthesis—Somatosensory feedback from the prosthesis foot reduces phantom limb pain dramatically. Pain Med. 2017, 19, 1698–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Guerra-Farfán, E.; Nuñez, J.H.; Sanchez-Raya, J.; Crespo-Fresno, A.; Anglés, F.; Minguell, J. Prosthetic limb options for below and above knee amputations: Making the correct choice for the right patient. Curr. Trauma Rep. 2018, 4, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Yang, J.R.; Yang, H.S.; Da Hyun Ahn DY, A.; Sim, W.S.; Yang, H.E. Differences in gait patterns of unilateral transtibial amputees with two types of energy storing prosthetic feet. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2018, 42, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Culver, S.; Bartlett, H.; Shultz, A.; Goldfarb, M. A Stair ascent and descent controller for a powered ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 993–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Geeroms, J.; Flynn, L.; Jimenez-Fabian, R.; Vanderborght, B.; Lefeber, D. Energetic analysis and optimization of a MACCEPA actuator in an ankle prosthesis Energetic evaluation of the CYBERLEGs alpha-prosthesis variable stiffness actuator during a realistic load cycle. Auton. Robots 2018, 42, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Quintero, D.; Reznick, E.; Lambert, D.J.; Rezazadeh, S.; Gray, L.; Gregg, R.D. Intuitive clinician control interface for a powered knee-ankle prosthesis: A case study. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Heal. Med. 2018, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  262. Quintero, D.; Villarreal, D.J.; Lambert, D.J.; Kapp, S.; Gregg, R.D. Continuous-phase control of a powered knee–ankle prosthesis: Amputee experiments across speeds and inclines. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2018, 34, 686–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Tahir, U.; Hessel, A.L.; Lockwood, E.R.; Tester, J.T.; Han, Z.; Rivera, D.J.; Covey, K.L.; Huck, T.G.; Rice, N.A.; Nishikawa, K.C. Case study: A bio-inspired control algorithm for a robotic foot-ankle prosthesis provides adaptive control of level walking and stair ascent. Front. Robot. AI 2018, 5, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Yin, K.; Pang, M.; Xiang, K.; Chen, J.; Zhou, S. Fuzzy iterative learning control strategy for powered ankle prosthesis. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl. 2018, 2, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Houdijk, H.; Wezenberg, D.; Hak, L.; Cutti, A.G. Energy storing and return prosthetic feet improve step length symmetry while preserving margins of stability in persons with transtibial amputation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Glanzer, E.M.; Adamczyk, P.G. Design and validation of a semi-active variable stiffness foot prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 2351–2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Bai, X.; Ewins, D.; Crocombe, A.D.; Xu, W. A biomechanical assessment of hydraulic ankle-foot devices with and without micro-processor control during slope ambulation in trans-femoral amputees. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Ray, S.F.; Wurdeman, S.R.; Takahashi, K.Z. Prosthetic energy return during walking increases after 3 weeks of adaptation to a new device. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  269. Burger, H.; Vidmar, G.; Zdovc, B.; Erzar, D.; Zalar, M. Comparison between three types of prosthetic feet: A randomized double-blind single-subject multiple-rater trial. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2018, 41, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. De Pauw, K.; Cherelle, P.; Roelands, B.; Lefeber, D.; Meeusen, R. The efficacy of the Ankle Mimicking Prosthetic Foot pro-totype 4.0 during walking: Physiological determinants. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2018, 42, 504–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  271. De Pauw, K.; Cherelle, P.; Tassignon, B.; Van Cutsem, J.; Roelands, B.; Marulanda, F.G.; Lefeber, D.; VanderBorght, B.; Meeusen, R. Cognitive performance and brain dynamics during walking with a novel bionic foot: A pilot study. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  272. Gao, F.; Liu, Y.; Liao, W.-H. Design of powered ankle-foot prosthesis with nonlinear parallel spring mechanism. J. Mech. Des. 2018, 140, 055001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Gao, F.; Liu, Y.-N.; Liao, W.-H. Implementation and testing of ankle-foot prosthesis with a new compensated controller. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2019, 24, 1775–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Sahoo, S.; Pratihar, D.K.; Mukhopadhyay, S. A novel energy efficient powered ankle prosthesis using four-bar controlled compliant actuator. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2018, 232, 4664–4675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Schmalz, T.; Altenburg, B.; Ernst, M.; Bellmann, M.; Rosenbaum, D. Lower limb amputee gait characteristics on a specifically designed test ramp: Preliminary results of a biomechanical comparison of two prosthetic foot concepts. Gait Posture 2019, 68, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Wurdeman, S.R.; Stevens, P.M.; Campbell, J.H. Mobility analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT 5): Impact of five common prosthetic ankle-foot categories for individuals with diabetic/dysvascular amputation. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 2019, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Zarezadeh, F.; Arazpour, M.; Bahramizadeh, M.; Mardani, M.A. Comparing the effect of new silicone foot prosthesis and conventional foot prosthesis on plantar pressure in diabetic patients with transmetatarsal amputation. J. Rehabil. 2019, 20, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  278. Bhargava, R. The Jaipur foot and the Jaipur Prosthesis. Indian J. Orthop. 2019, 53, 5–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Zhang, X.; Fiedler, G.; Liu, Z. Evaluation of gait variable change over time as transtibial amputees adapt to a new prosthesis foot. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 9252368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Bartlett, H.L.; Lawson, B.E.; Goldfarb, M. Design, control, and preliminary assessment of a multifunctional semipowered ankle prosthesis. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2019, 24, 1532–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Agboola-Dobson, A.; Wei, G.; Ren, L. Biologically inspired design and development of a variable stiffness powered an-kle-foot prosthesis. J. Mech. Robot. 2019, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Convens, B.; Dong, D.; Furnemont, R.; Verstraten, T.; Cherelle, P.; Lefeber, D.; VanderBorght, B. Modeling, design and test-bench validation of a semi-active propulsive ankle prosthesis with a clutched series elastic actuator. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2019, 4, 1823–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Lenzi, T.; Cempini, M.; Hargrove, L.J.; Kuiken, T.A. Design, development, and validation of a lightweight nonback-drivable robotic ankle prosthesis. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2019, 24, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Yu, T.; Plummer, A.R.; Iravani, P.; Bhatti, J.; Zahedi, S.; Moser, D. The design, control, and testing of an integrated elec-trohydrostatic powered ankle prosthesis. IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2019, 24, 1011–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Popescu, S.-C. Analysis of stress and prediction of the defects of an ankle prosthesis using the autodesk inventor software. Rev. Chim. 2019, 70, 1942–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Herr, H.M.; Grabowski, A.M. Bionic ankle–foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputation. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2011, 279, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  287. Au, S.; Berniker, M.; Herr, H. Powered ankle-foot prosthesis to assist level-ground and stair-descent gaits. Neural Netw. 2008, 21, 654–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  288. Au, S.K.; Weber, J.A.; Herr, H.M. Powered ankle-foot prosthesis improves walking metabolic economy. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2009, 25, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  289. Eilenberg, M.F.; Geyer, H.; Herr, H.M. Control of a powered ankle–foot prosthesis based on a neuromuscular model. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabilitation Eng. 2010, 18, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Au, S.K.; Herr, H.M. Powered ankle-foot prosthesis. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2008, 15, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Sup, F.; Bohara, A.; Goldfarb, M. Design and control of a powered transfemoral prosthesis. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2008, 27, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  292. Hansen, A.H.; Childress, D.S.; Miff, S.C.; Gard, S.; Mesplay, K.P. The human ankle during walking: Implications for design of biomimetic ankle prostheses. J. Biomech. 2004, 37, 1467–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  293. Collins, S.H.; Kuo, A.D. Recycling energy to restore impaired ankle function during human walking. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  294. Torburn, L.; Powers, C.M.; Guiterrez, R.; Perry, J. Energy expenditure during ambulation in dysvascular and traumatic below-knee amputees: A comparison of five prosthetic feet. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 1995, 32, 111–119. [Google Scholar]
  295. Ziegler-Graham, K.; MacKenzie, E.J.; Ephraim, P.L.; Travison, T.G.; Brookmeyer, R. Estimating the Prevalence of Limb Loss in the United States: 2005 to Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Applsci 11 05591 g001 550
Figure 1. Different movements of the foot.
Figure 1. Different movements of the foot.
Applsci 11 05591 g001
Applsci 11 05591 g002 550
Figure 2. Search method for patents/scientific documents and total results.
Figure 2. Search method for patents/scientific documents and total results.
Applsci 11 05591 g002
Applsci 11 05591 g003 550
Figure 3. Categories of the patents’ analysis and results by category.
Figure 3. Categories of the patents’ analysis and results by category.
Applsci 11 05591 g003
Applsci 11 05591 g004 550
Figure 4. A display of prosthesis types in terms of electronic, hydraulic, and mechanical technology.
Figure 4. A display of prosthesis types in terms of electronic, hydraulic, and mechanical technology.
Applsci 11 05591 g004
Applsci 11 05591 g005 550
Figure 5. Top patent applicants for lower limb prosthesis.
Figure 5. Top patent applicants for lower limb prosthesis.
Applsci 11 05591 g005
Applsci 11 05591 g006 550
Figure 6. Top 10 most relevant authors on lower limb prosthesis design.
Figure 6. Top 10 most relevant authors on lower limb prosthesis design.
Applsci 11 05591 g006
Applsci 11 05591 g007 550
Figure 7. Most productive countries for ankle/foot prosthesis literature.
Figure 7. Most productive countries for ankle/foot prosthesis literature.
Applsci 11 05591 g007
Applsci 11 05591 g008 550
Figure 8. (A) General form of ESAR prosthesis, (B) Modified ESAR prosthesis, (C) ESAR with split plates, (D) ESAR prosthesis with cushions, (E) ESAR with damping system.
Figure 8. (A) General form of ESAR prosthesis, (B) Modified ESAR prosthesis, (C) ESAR with split plates, (D) ESAR prosthesis with cushions, (E) ESAR with damping system.
Applsci 11 05591 g008
Applsci 11 05591 g009 550
Figure 9. (A) Multiple plates prosthesis, (B) Single spring prosthesis by Kim Sa Yeop [74].
Figure 9. (A) Multiple plates prosthesis, (B) Single spring prosthesis by Kim Sa Yeop [74].
Applsci 11 05591 g009
Applsci 11 05591 g010 550
Figure 10. CERS prosthesis by Endo Ken [129].
Figure 10. CERS prosthesis by Endo Ken [129].
Applsci 11 05591 g010
Applsci 11 05591 g011 550
Figure 11. MAP active ankle–foot prosthesis.
Figure 11. MAP active ankle–foot prosthesis.
Applsci 11 05591 g011
Applsci 11 05591 g012 550
Figure 12. LPP active prosthesis.
Figure 12. LPP active prosthesis.
Applsci 11 05591 g012
Applsci 11 05591 g013 550
Figure 13. CAS Prosthesis.
Figure 13. CAS Prosthesis.
Applsci 11 05591 g013
Applsci 11 05591 g014 550
Figure 14. (A) Experimental powered lower limb prosthesis by Huang et al. [189] and (B) two DOF cable-driven ankle–foot prosthesis by Ficanha et al. [213].
Figure 14. (A) Experimental powered lower limb prosthesis by Huang et al. [189] and (B) two DOF cable-driven ankle–foot prosthesis by Ficanha et al. [213].
Applsci 11 05591 g014
Applsci 11 05591 g015 550
Figure 15. A robotic ankle–foot prosthesis by LaPre [229].
Figure 15. A robotic ankle–foot prosthesis by LaPre [229].
Applsci 11 05591 g015
Applsci 11 05591 g016 550
Figure 16. Comparative static analysis of ESAR prosthesis.
Figure 16. Comparative static analysis of ESAR prosthesis.
Applsci 11 05591 g016
Applsci 11 05591 g017 550
Figure 17. Results of deformations on uneven terrain.
Figure 17. Results of deformations on uneven terrain.
Applsci 11 05591 g017
Table
Table 1. Removable ankle/foot prostheses patents.
Table 1. Removable ankle/foot prostheses patents.
CiteTitleMain ApplicantBody PartTechnologyType
[7]-Adjustment Device for A Lower Limb ProsthesisBlatchford Products Limited.AnkleHydraulicHybrid
[8]-Below-knee Prosthesis Provided with Power Ankle Beijing Gongdao Fengxing IntelligentAnkle/FootElectronicESAR
[9]-Bifurcated, Multi-purpose Prosthetic FootChristensen Roland J.FootMechanicalESAR
[10]-Bi-modal Ankle-foot DeviceHansen Andrew H.Ankle/FootMechanicalCESR
[11]-Controlling Power in A Prosthesis or orthosis Based on Predicted Walking Speed or Surrogate for SameHerr Hugh M.Ankle/FootElectronicCESR
[12]-Damping Device for A ProsthesisOssur Hf.AnkleMechanicalHybrid
[13]-Energy Storing Foot PlateIversen Edwin KayAnkle/FootMechanicalESAR
[14]-Further Improvements to Ankle–foot Prosthesis and orthosis Capable of Automatic Adaptation to Sloped Walking SurfacesHansen Andrew H.Ankle/FootMechanicalCESR
[15]-Joints for Prosthetic, orthotic and/or Robotic DevicesRifkin Jerome R.FootMechanicalHybrid
[16]-Low Profile Prosthetic FootJonsson Orn IngviFootMechanicalESAR
[17]-Lower Limb Prosthetic Device with A Wave SpringRubie Eric W.FootMechanicalESAR
[18]-Modular Prosthetic FootMiller Joseph A.FootMechanicalESAR
[19]-Orthopedic Foot PartOtto Bock HoldingAnkle/FootElectronicActive
[20]-Passive Ankle Prosthesis with Energy Return Simulating that of A Natural AnkleJoseph M. SchimmelsAnkle/FootMechanicalCESR
[21]-Passive orthopedic Aid in the form of a Foot Prosthesis or Foot orthosisOtto Bock HealthcareAnkle/FootHydraulicActive
[22]-Power Below-knee Prosthesis with Discrete Soft Toe Joints Beijing Gongdao Fengxing IntelligentAnkle/FootMechanicalESAR
[23]-Prosthetic Ankle–foot System Universiteit GentAnkle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[24]-Prosthetic Energy Storing and Releasing Apparatus and MethodsPhillips Van L.FootMechanicalESAR
[25]-Prosthetic FootKeith B. SmithFootMechanicalESAR
[26]-Prosthetics Using Curved Dampening CylindersAaron TaszreakAnkle/footMechanicalESAR
[27]-A Foot with A Vacuum Unit Activated by an Ankle MotionDuger MustafaAnkleMechanicalHybrid
[28]-Artificial Ankle, Artificial Foot and Artificial LegFalz & Kannenberg GmbhAnkleElectronicActive
[29]-Artificial Limb Prosthesis Leg Below Knee & Above KneeUniv BharathAnkle/FootMechanicalESAR
[30]-Flexible Prosthetic ApplianceBrown Christopher A.FootMechanicalHybrid
[31]-Foot for Mobility DeviceSanders Michael R.FootMechanicalESAR
[32]-High-performance Multi-component Prosthetic FootRubie Eric W.FootMechanicalESAR
[33]-Hydraulic Actuating Unit and Artificial Foot Prosthesis System Having the Same GyeonggyeongcheolAnkleElectronicHybrid
[34]-Hydraulic System for A Knee-ankle Assembly Controlled by a MicroprocessorXavier BonnetAnkleElectronicCESR
[35]-Prosthesis Structure for Lower-limb Amputees Officine Ortopediche Rizzoli Sr.Ankle/FootElectronicHybrid
[36]-Prosthetic FootAbility Dynamics Llc.FootMechanicalESAR
[37]-Prosthetic FootFrizen FootMechanicalESAR
[38]-Prosthetic FootFrizen DzheffFootMechanicalESAR
[39]-Prosthetic FootLuder MoslerFootMechanicalESAR
[40]-Prosthetic FootThe Ohio Willow Wood CompanyFootMechanicalESAR
[41]-Prosthetic Foot with a Curved SplitJonsson Vilhjalmur FreyrFootMechanicalESAR
[42]-Prosthetic Foot with Dual Foot Blades and Vertically offset ToeLecomte Christophe GuyFootMechanicalESAR
[43]-Prosthetic Foot with Floating forefoot KeelChristensen Roland J.FootMechanicalESAR
[44]-Prosthetic Limb3d SystemsAnkle/FootMechanicalESAR
[45]-Prosthetic SystemHawkins RyanAnkleMechanicalHybrid
[46]-Smooth Rollover insole for Prosthetic FootClausen Arinbjorn ViggoFootMechanicalESAR
[47]-System for Powered Ankle–foot Prosthesis with Active Control of Dorsiflexion-plantarflexion and inversion-eversionMo RastgaarAnkleElectronicHybrid
[48]-Walking Controller for Powered Ankle ProsthesesMichael GoldfarbAnkleElectronicActive
[49]-Actuated Prosthesis for AmputeesBedard StephaneAnkle/FootElectronicActive
[50]-Additive Manufacturing Produced Prosthetic FootJames M. ColvinFootMechanicalESAR
[51]-Ankle Prosthesis AssemblyErmalyuk Vladimir NikolaevichFootHydraulicHybrid
[52]-Ankle Prosthesis Assembly of FootSuslov Andrej VladimirovichFootMechanicalESAR
[53]-Artificial FootInha Industry Partnership InstituteFootElectronicActive
[54]-Artificial Foot for Sports Seo Jung WoongAnkle/FootMechanicalESAR
[55]-Artificial Foot Prosthesis System Sogang UniversityAnkleElectronicActive
[56]-Artificial Human Limbs and Joints Employing Actuators, Springs, and Variable-damper ElementsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyAnkleMechanicalActive
[57]-Controlled Coronal Stiffness Prosthetic AnkleKlute GlennAnkleMechanicalHybrid
[58]-False Foot of Carbon -fibre Composite Beijing Baimtec.FootMechanicalESAR
[59]-Foot ProsthesisMedi Gmbh & Co.FootMechanicalESAR
[60]-Foot Prosthesis with Adjustable RolloverMccarvill SarahFootMechanicalESAR
[61]-Hybrid Ankle Joints Jo HyunAnkleElectronicActive
[62]-instrumented Prosthetic FootVicthom Human Bionics Inc.FootMechanicalESAR
[63]-Layering Technique for An Adjustable, Repairable Variable Stiffness Prosthetic FootGonzalez Roger V.FootMechanicalESAR
[64]-Passive orthopaedic Aid in the form of a Foot Prosthetic or orthotic MoslerFootMechanicalHybrid
[65]-Prosthetic Ankle ModuleÁsgeirsson SigurõurFootMechanicalESAR
[66]-Prosthetic Ankle ModuleNijman JeroenFootMechanicalESAR
[67]-Prosthetic Ankle: A Method of Controlling Based on Adaptation to SpeedArinbjorn ClausenAnkleMechanicalActive
[68]-Prosthetic Device and Method with Compliant Linking Member and Actuating Linking MemberMatthew A. HolgateAnkle/FootElectronicCESR
[69]-Prosthetic FootAbility Dynamics Llc.FootMechanicalESAR
[70]-Prosthetic FootAbility Dynamics Llc.FootMechanicalESAR
[71]-Prosthetic FootDoddroe Jeffrey L.FootMechanicalESAR
[72]-Prosthetic FootStarker FelixFootMechanicalESAR
[73]-Prosthetic FootSulprizio Michael ScottFootMechanicalESAR
[74]-Prosthetic Foot and Manufacturing Method ThereofKim Sa YeopFootMechanicalESAR
[75]-Prosthetic Vacuum SystemOssur Hf.FootElectronicHybrid
[76]-Responsive ProsthesisHowellFootMechanicalESAR
[77]-A Prosthesis or orthosis Comprising a Hinge Joint System for Functionally Assisting, Enhancing and/or Replacing A Hinge Joint of a Human or Animal SubjectVrije Universiteit BrusselAnkle/FootMechanicalCESR
[78]-Active Lower Leg Prosthesis Device Sogang UniversityAnkleHydraulicCESR
[79]-Apparatus and Method for A Split Toe BladeRubie Eric W.FootMechanicalESAR
[80]-Artificial Ankle Joint Limb Based on Flexible Driver Nanjing Institute of TechnologyAnkleMechanicalHybrid
[81]-Artificial FootHornos PedroFootMechanicalESAR
[82]-Artificial Foot and Method for Controlling the Movement ThereofOtto Bock Holding.FootMechanicalESAR
[83]-Bow -shaped Ankle Structure Combined Material Artificial Limb Foot CoreLin Yusen.FootMechanicalESAR
[84]-Catapult Ankle and Related MethodsRouse Elliott J.AnkleElectronicHybrid
[85]-Dispositif De Prothese De Cheville Controle Par Une Prothese De Genou Motorisee Sensible A La PesanteurMillinavAnkleMechanicalHybrid
[86]-Electronically Controlled Prosthetic SystemMartin James JayFootElectronicActive
[87]-Fine Energy Storage Foot of CarbonSun YongshangFootMechanicalESAR
[88]-Foot ProsthesisKranner WernerFootMechanicalESAR
[89]-Foot Prosthesis with Resilient Multi-axial AnkleLecomte Christophe GuyFootMechanicalESAR
[90]-Microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Ankle System for Footwear and Terrain AdaptationPalmer MichaelAnkleHydraulicActive
[91]-Novel Fine Prosthetic Foot of Comfortable Energy Storage CarbonGuangzhou Kangmeite Prostheses Co Ltd.FootMechanicalESAR
[92]-Oil Pressure Ankle Joint Ken Dall Enterprise.AnkleHydraulicHybrid
[93]-Overmould Attachments for Prosthetic FootLecomte Christophe GuyFootMechanicalESAR
[94]-Prosthetic Ankle and Method of Controlling Same Based on Adaptation to SpeedOssur Hf.AnkleElectronicActive
[95]-Prosthetic FootKeith B. SmithFootMechanicalESAR
[96]-Prosthetic FootOtto Bock Holding.FootMechanicalESAR
[97]-Prosthetic FootSun YongshangFootMechanicalESAR
[98]-Prosthetic Foot StructureCheng Yao TengFootMechanicalESAR
[99]-Prosthetic Foot with Energy Transfer Medium including Variable Viscosity FluidChristensen Roland J.FootMechanicalESAR
[100]-Prosthetic Foot, System of A Prosthetic Foot and A Shoe, and Method for Adapting the Heel Height of a Prosthetic FootHermann MeyerAnkle/FootMechanicalESAR
[101]-Prosthetic Joint with Mechanical Response System to Position and Rate of ChangeLincoln Lucas SamuelAnkleMechanicalCESR
[102]-Prosthetic Sport FeetClausen Arinbjorn V.FootMechanicalESAR
[103]-Shock Attenuation Energy -absorbing Prosthetic Foot Foot CoreLi JingtongFootMechanicalESAR
[104]-Single-freedom-degree Active Type Ankle Joint Artificial Limb Based on Closed Type Hydraulic Driving System Wang XingjianAnkle/FootHydraulicActive
[105]-Systems and Control Methodologies for Improving Stability in Powered Lower Limb DevicesVanderbilt UniversityAnkle/FootElectronicActive
[106]-Actuator Control System and Related MethodsNorthern Arizona University.Ankle/FootElectronicActive
[107]-Ankle–foot Prosthesis DeviceLiu Yan NanAnkleElectronicActive
[108]-Articulated orthopaedic Foot with Shock Absorption, Which Prevents the Impact Produced in Each Foot-loading Cycle When Walking or Running, Providing Natural Movement and Stability for The UserMora Morales MiguelFootMechanicalESAR
[109]-Artificial FootLindhe Christoffer.FootMechanicalESAR
[110]-Biomimetic and Variable Stiffness Ankle System and Related MethodsRouse Elliott J.AnkleMechanicalHybrid
[111]-Bionic Prosthetic Mechanical Foot with Parallel JointsXing ZhipingAnkle/FootElectronicHybrid
[112]-Clearance Enhancer for Lower Limb ProsthesisPalmer Jeffrey RayFootMechanicalESAR
[113]-Energy Storage FootBonawei Rehabilitation.Ankle/FootMechanicalESAR
[114]-Foot ProsthesisOtto Bock Holding.Ankle/FootElectronicHybrid
[115]-Foot ProsthesisSven KaltenbornAnkle/FootHydraulicHybrid
[116]-Foot Prosthesis Has Blade Benjamin PenotAnkle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[117]-Foot Prosthesis with Dymic Variable Keel Resistance Matthew J. HabeckerAnkle/FootMechanicalCESR
[118]-Foot Prosthesis with Dynamic Variable Keel ResistanceMatthew J. HabeckerAnkle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[119]-Hydraulic Ankle Chia-pao ChengAnkleHydraulicHybrid
[120]-Hydraulic Ankle JointKen Dall Enterprise.AnkleHydraulicHybrid
[121]-Jointless Prosthetic FootBoiten Herman.FootMechanicalESAR
[122]-Light intelligent Energy-storage Energy-releasing Ankle ProsthesisYe Yanhong.FootMechanicalCESR
[123]-Limb Prosthesis System and MethodBartlett Brian.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[124]-Linear Actuator for Asymmetric Power Generation and DissipationMichael Goldfarb.AnkleElectronicHybrid
[125]-Lower Limb Prosthesis Comprising A Hydraulic Damping and A Vacuum Generating MechanismGraham Harris.Ankle/FootHydraulicActive
[126]-Medial-lateral Stabilizing Prosthetic Ankle/foot for Angled and Rough Ground GaitMaitland Murray E.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[127]-Method for Operating A Prosthetic Ankle Clausen Arinbjorn V.FootElectronicActive
[128]-Modular Lower Limb Prosthesis SystemFairley Joseph.FootMechanicalESAR
[129]-Movement Support ApparatusEndo Ken.Ankle/FootMechanicalCESR
[130]-Polycentric Powered Ankle ProsthesisLenzi Tommaso.AnkleElectronicActive
[131]-Powered Artificial Ankle Based on Electro-hydraulic Direct Drive Technology Huang Qi-tao.AnkleHydraulicHybrid
[132]-Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices Having Magnetorheological Elastomer Spring with Controllable StiffnessGudmundsson Ivar.FootMechanicalESAR
[133]-Prosthetic Ankle and Foot CombinationMoser David.Ankle/FootMechanicalESAR
[134]-Prosthetic DeviceFillauer Euro Ab.Ankle/FootMechanicalESAR
[135]-Prosthetic DeviceRamirez Christoffer.FootMechanicalESAR
[136]-Prosthetic FootBonacini Daniele.FootMechanicalESAR
[137]-Prosthetic FootSmith Keith.FootMechanicalESAR
[138]-Prosthetic FootWillowwood Global.FootMechanicalESAR
[139]-Prosthetic FootZamora David A.FootMechanicalESAR
[140]-Prosthetic Foot with Hybrid LayupGunnarssonn Ragnar.FootMechanicalESAR
[141]-Prosthetic Foot with Modular ConstructionKramer Leslie D.FootMechanicalESAR
[142]-Shank Prosthesis Provided with Double Foot Sole PlatesZhang Jun.FootHydraulicESAR
[143]-Spring Design for Prosthetic ApplicationsProst Victor.FootMechanicalHybrid
[144]-Stair Ascent and Descent Control for Powered Lower Limb Devices Vanderbilt University.Ankle/FootMechanicalESAR
[145]-Tapered Flex Plate for Prosthetic FootJonsson Orn Ingvi.FootMechanicalESAR
[146]-Variable Bar Length Gear Five-bar Mechanism Active and Passive Ankle Artificial Limb Univ Northwestern Polytechnical.AnkleMechanicalHybrid
[147]-Variable Stiffness Prosthetic FootSandahl David.FootMechanicalESAR
[148]-Adjustable Stiffness Prosthetic FootSmith Justin R.FootMechanicalESAR
[149]-Ankle–foot Prosthesis for Automatic Adaptation to Sloped Walking SurfacesHansen Andrew H.FootMechanicalCESR
[150]-Artificial Ankle–foot System with Spring, Variable-damping, and Series-elastic Actuator ComponentsMassachusetts Institute of Technology.Ankle/FootElectronicActive
[151]-Biomimetic Prosthetic DeviceSchlafly Millicent KayFootMechanicalCESR
[152]-Carbon Fiber Prosthetic FootNelson Ronald Harry.footMechanicalESAR
[153]-Compression Heel Prosthetic FootParker Gene.FootMechanicalESAR
[154]-Foot ProsthesisPusch Martin.FootMechanicalESAR
[155]-Hydraulic Pressure Energy Storage Prosthetic FootWang Zitong.Ankle/FootHydraulicESAR
[156]-Hydraulic Prosthetic AnklePoulson Arlo Iii.AnkleMechanicalCESR
[157]-Low-energy Artificial LimbWang Jianhua.FootMechanicalESAR
[158]-Lower Limb ProsthesisBlatchford Products.Ankle/FootElectronicActive
[159]-Passive and Slope Adaptable Prosthetic Foot AnkleAmiot DavidFootHydraulicCESR
[160]-Powered Ankle–foot ProsthesisHerr Hugh M.Ankle/FootElectronicActive
[161]-Prosthesis and Prosthetic Foot AdapterAllermann Ralf.Ankle/FootMechanicalESAR
[162]-Prosthetic Ankle Joint MechanismMoser David.AnkleHydraulicHybrid
[163]-Prosthetic Apparatus and Method ThereforPeter Gabriel A.FootMechanicalESAR
[164]-Prosthetic Feet Having Heel Height AdjustabilityAlbertson Aron Kristhjorn.AnkleMechanicalCESR
[165]-Prosthetic FootFriesen Jeff.FootMechanicalESAR
[166]-Prosthetic FootGrosskopf Stefan.FootMechanicalESAR
[167]-Prosthetic FootGuangdong Lanwan Intelligent Technology.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[168]-Prosthetic FootJo Sung Hun.FootMechanicalESAR
[169]-Prosthetic FootPusch Martin.FootMechanicalESAR
[170]-Prosthetic Foot Having A Function of AnkleKim Hyun Cheol.Ankle/FootMechanicalESAR
[171]-Prosthetic Foot insert and Prosthetic FootMosler Loder.FootMechanicalESAR
[172]-Prosthetic Foot that Toe Part Can RotateKim Hyun Cheol.FootMechanicalESAR
[173]-Prosthetic Foot with Enhanced Stability and Elastic Energy ReturnClausen Arinbjorn Viggo.FootHydraulicCESR
[174]-Prosthetic Foot with Removable Flexible MembersClausen Arinbjorn Viggo.Ankle/FootHydraulicESAR
[175]-Prosthetic Foot with Spaced Spring ElementsDay Jesse.FootMechanicalESAR
[176]-Prosthetic Foot and Prosthesis for A Lower ExtremityRadspieler Andreas.Ankle/FootMechanicalESAR
[177]-A Prosthetic Ankle and Foot CombinationBlatchford Products.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[178]-Foot Prosthesis Comprising A Damping ElementPm Ingenierie Et Design.FootMechanicalHybrid
[179]-Lower Limb ProsthesisBlatchford Products.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[180]-OberschenkelprothesenpassteilKlopf, Johannes.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[181]-Prosthesis or orthosisUniversité Catholique De Louvain.FootMechanicalHybrid
[182]-Prosthetic Ankle Assembly and Ankle–foot System Comprising SameHein, Emily.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[183]-Prosthetic External Fixation Assembly for Post-amputee AmbulationDennis G. Haun.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
[184]-Prosthetic FootComité International De La Croix-rouge.FootMechanicalHybrid
[185]-Prosthetic Foot and Connector for Prosthetic FootXiborg Inc.FootMechanicalESAR
[186]-Prótesis Mecánica De PieInstituto Tecnológico José Mario Molina Pasquel Y. Henriquez.FootMechanicalCESR
[187]-Pyramidal Prosthetic FootGosakan, Haripriya.FootMechanicalESAR
[188]-Single Axis Ankle–foot Prosthesis with Mechanically Adjustable Range of MotionMcnicholas Sara Koehler.Ankle/FootMechanicalHybrid
Table
Table 2. Articles analyzed for ankle/foot prosthesis.
Table 2. Articles analyzed for ankle/foot prosthesis.
CiteMain AuthorDocument TopicsYear
[189]Huang, StephaniePowered Ankle Prosthesis Design2014
[190]Sun, JinmingClinical Study2014
[191]Wezenberg, DaphneComparative Study2014
[192]Nickel, EricComponent Design2014
[193]Mulder, Inge A.Foot Prosthesis Design2014
[194,195]Safaeepour, ZahraPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2014
[196]Zhu, JinyingPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2014
[197,198]Ko, Chang-YongClinical Study2014–2016
[199,200]Cherelle, PierrePowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2014–2017
[201,202,203]Simon, Ann M.Component Design/Study2014–2018
[204]Caputo, Joshua M.Gait Study2014
[205]Asencio, J. G.Clinical Study2015
[206]Bonnet, XavierComparative Study2015
[207]Fairhurst, Stuart R.Component Design2015
[208]Realmuto, JonathanComponent Design2015
[209]Hessel, A. L.Powered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2015
[210]Rouse, Elliott J.Powered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2015
[211]Flynn, LouisPowered Ankle/knee Prosthesis design2015
[212]Ficanha, Evandro MaiconPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2015
[213,214]Rice, Jacob J.Powered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2015–2016
[215]Jimenez-Fabian, ReneComponent Design2017
[216,217,218]Shultz, Amanda H.Component Design/Study2015–2018
[219,220]Kim, MyungheePowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2015–2018
[221]Ingraham, Kimberly A.Powered Ankle Prosthesis Study2016
[222]Quesada, Roberto E.Clinical Study2016
[223]Delussu, Anna S.Comparative Study2016
[224]Khaghani, AlirezaComponent Design2016
[225]Narayanan, GovindarajanFoot Prosthesis Design2016
[226]Isaacs, M. R.Passive Ankle foot prosthesis study2016
[227]Grimmer, MartinPowered Ankle Prosthesis Design2016
[228]LaPre, Andrew KennedyPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2016
[229]Rabago, Christopher A.Prosthesis Study2016
[230]Ettinger, SarahStudy2016
[231,232,233]Esposito, Elizabeth RussellGait Study2016–2018
[234]Lacraz, AlainComparative Study2017
[235]Gardiner, JamesComparative Study2017
[236]Ke, Ming-JenComponent Design2017
[237]Tao, ZhenFoot Prosthesis Design2017
[238]Lee, Jeffrey D.Pneumatic Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2017
[239]Mazumder, O.Powered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2017
[240]AnonymousPowered Foot Prosthesis Design2017
[241]Weerakkody, Thilina H.Review2017
[242,243]Koehler-McNicholas, Sara R.Powered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2017–2018
[244]Shepherd, Max K.Powered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2017
[245,246]Dong, DianbiaoPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2017–2018
[247]Lechler, KnutClinical Study2018
[248]Eslamy, MahdyBiomechanical Study2018
[249]Jayaraman, ChandrasekaranPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis study2018
[250]Hahn, AndreasPowered Foot Prosthesis Evaluation2018
[251]Armannsdottir, AnnaAnathomical Study2018
[252]Zelik, Karl E.Anathomical Study2018
[253]Gardinier, Emily S.Clinical Study2018
[254]Heitzmann, Daniel W. W.Clinical Study2018
[255]Montgomery, Jana R.Clinical Study2018
[256]Preissler, SandraClinical Study2018
[257]Guerra-Farfan, ErnestoComparative Study2018
[258]Yang, Ja RyungComparative Study2018
[259]Culver, StevenComponent Design2018
[260]Geeroms, JoostComponent Design2018
[261,262]Quintero, DavidComponent Design2018
[263]Tahir, UzmaComponent Design2018
[264]Yin, KaiyangComponent Design2018
[265]Houdijk, HanFoot Prosthesis Design2018
[266]Glanzer, Evan M.Powered Foot Prosthesis Design2018
[267]Bai, XuefeiProsthesis Study2018
[268]Ray, Samuel F.Prosthesis Study2018
[269]Burger, HelenaReview2018
[270,271]De Pauw, KevinAnathomical Study2018–2019
[272,273]Gao, FeiPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2018–2019
[274]Sahoo, SaikatPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2018
[275]Schmalz, ThomasComparative Study2019
[276]Wurdeman, Shane R.Comparative Study2019
[277]Zarezadeh, FatemehComparative Study2019
[278]Bhargava, RakeshFoot Prosthesis Design2019
[279]Zhang, XueyiGait Study2019
[280]Bartlett, Harrison L.Powered Ankle Prosthesis Design2019
[281]Agboola-Dobson, AlexanderPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2019
[282]Convens, BryanPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2019
[283]Lenzi, TommasoPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2019
[284]Yu, TianPowered Ankle/foot Prosthesis design2019
[285]Popescu, Stefan-CatalinProsthesis Study2019
Table
Table 3. Top 10 most cited articles in ankle/foot prosthesis.
Table 3. Top 10 most cited articles in ankle/foot prosthesis.
No.CiteArticleAuthorsYear
1[286]Bionic ankle–foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputationHugh M. Herr, Alena M. Grabowski2012
2[287]Powered ankle–foot prosthesis to assist level-ground and stair-descent gaitsSamuel Aua, Max Berniker a, Hugh Herr2008
3[288]Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis Improves Walking Metabolic EconomySamuel K. Au, Jeff Weber, Hugh Herr2009
4[289]Control of a Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis Based on a Neuromuscular ModelMichael F. Eilenberg, Hartmut Geyer, Hugh Herr2010
5[290]Powered Ankle-Foot ProsthesisSamuel K. Aa, Hugh M. Herr2008
6[291]Design and Control of a Powered Transfemoral ProsthesisFrank Sup, Amit Bohara, Michael Goldfarb2008
7[292]The human ankle during walking: implications for design of biomimetic ankle prosthesesAndrew H. Hansena, Dudley S. Childressa, Steve C. Miff, Steven A. Garda, Kent P. Mesplayd2004
8[293]Recycling Energy to Restore Impaired Ankle Function during Human WalkingSteven H. Collins, Arthur D. Kuo2010
9[294]Energy expenditure during ambulation in dysvascular and traumatic below-knee amputees: A comparison of five prosthetic feetLeslie Torburn, Christopher M. Powers, Robert Guiterrez, Jacquelin Perry1995
10[295]Estimating the Prevalence of Limb Loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050Kathryn Ziegler-Graham, Ellen J. MacKenzie, Patti L. Ephraim, Thomas G. Travison, Ron Brookmeyer2008
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zagoya-López, J.; Zúñiga-Avilés, L.A.; Vilchis-González, A.H.; Ávila-Vilchis, J.C. Foot/Ankle Prostheses Design Approach Based on Scientometric and Patentometric Analyses. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5591. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125591

AMA Style

Zagoya-López J, Zúñiga-Avilés LA, Vilchis-González AH, Ávila-Vilchis JC. Foot/Ankle Prostheses Design Approach Based on Scientometric and Patentometric Analyses. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(12):5591. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125591

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zagoya-López, Joel, Luis Adrián Zúñiga-Avilés, Adriana H. Vilchis-González, and Juan Carlos Ávila-Vilchis. 2021. "Foot/Ankle Prostheses Design Approach Based on Scientometric and Patentometric Analyses" Applied Sciences 11, no. 12: 5591. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125591

APA Style

Zagoya-López, J., Zúñiga-Avilés, L. A., Vilchis-González, A. H., & Ávila-Vilchis, J. C. (2021). Foot/Ankle Prostheses Design Approach Based on Scientometric and Patentometric Analyses. Applied Sciences, 11(12), 5591. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125591

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop