Clinical and Mechanical Testing of Prosthetic Feet: A Review of Methods and Outcomes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11594/nstp.2025.4750Keywords:
Prosthetic feet, clinical testing, gait analysis, mechanical testingAbstract
Prosthetic feet are vital for restoring mobility and enhancing the quality of life for individuals with lower-limb amputations. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of clinical and mechanical testing methods used to evaluate prosthetic feet, focusing on their effectiveness, durability, and functionality. Clinical testing typically involves gait analysis, user feedback, and motion capture, while mechanical testing covers fatigue tests, load distribution, and material resilience. By examining the strengths and limitations of these methods, this review aims to identify best practices and future directions for prosthetic foot assessment. The review also discusses how mechanical properties, such as stiffness and energy return, impact the clinical performance of prosthetic feet. Ultimately, this work highlights the importance of rigorous testing in improving the safety, comfort, and long-term usability of prosthetic devices, ensuring that they meet the diverse needs of users. These advancements contribute to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and Goal 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).
Downloads
References
Alexander, S. D., Joshua, W. S., Christopher, J. W., Peter, R. W. (2016). Registering a methodology for imaging and analysis of residual-limb shape after transtibial amputation. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 53(2), 207-218
Anderson, S. P., Barnett, C. T., Rusaw, D. F., Anderson, S. P., Barnett, C. T., & Rusaw, D. F. (2021). Exploring the perspectives of prosthetic and orthotic users: past and present experiences and insights for the future. Disability and Rehabilitation, 0(0), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1928777
Asif, M., Tiwana, M. I., Khan, U. S., Qureshi, W. S., Iqbal, J., Rashid, N., & Naseer, N. (2021). Advancements, trends and future prospects of lower limb prosthesis. IEEE Access, 9, 85956– 85977. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3086807
Bhuyan, D., & Kumar, K. (2021). Design of a prosthetic ankle complex: a study in biomimetic system design. In Research Anthology on Emerging Technologies and Ethical Implications in Human Enhancement (pp. 381–399).
Boutwell, E. (2012). Effect of prosthetic gel liner thickness on gait biomechanics and pressure distribution within the transtibial socket. 49(2), 227–240.
Catalano, M. G., Pollayil, M. J., Grioli, G., Valsecchi, G., Kolvenbach, H., Hutter, M., Bicchi, A., & Garabini, M. (2022). Adaptive feet for quadrupedal walkers. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 38(1), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2021.3088060
Chui, K. K., Jorge, M., Yen, S.-C., & Lusardi, M. M. (2019). Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation.
Deans, S. A., McFadyen, A. K., & Rowe, P. J. (2008). Physical activity and quality of life: a study of a lower limb amputee population. Prosthet Orthot Int, 32(2), 186–200.
Falbriard, M., Huot, G., Janier, M., Chandran, R., Rechsteiner, M., Michaud, V., Cugnoni, J., Botsis, J., Schönenberger, K., & Aminian, K. (2022). A functional approach towards the design, development, and test of an affordable dynamic prosthetic foot. PLoS ONE, 17(5 May), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266656
Fatone, S., & Baer, G. (2022). Scoping review of mechanical testing of the structural and material properties of lower-limb prosthetic sockets. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 35(2), 37–47.
Friel, K. (2005). Componentry for lower extremity prostheses. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 13(5), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200509000-00006
Hoque, M. E., Shafoyat, M. U., & Tabassun, F. (2024). Polymers, their composites, blends, and nanocomposites for the fabrication of prosthetics. Applications of Biopolymers in Science, Biotechnology, and Engineering, 361–389.
Ielapi, A., Forward, M., & Beule, M. De. (2019). Computational and experimental evaluation of the mechanical properties of ankle foot orthoses: A literature review. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 43(8):030936461882445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364618824452
LeMoyne, R. (2016). Amputations and prostheses, a topic of global concern. Advances for Prosthetic Technology. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55816-3_1
Lopez-avina, G. I., Barocio, E., Huegel, J. C., & Member, S. (2017). Pseudo Fatigue Test of Passive Energy-Returning Prosthetic Foot. Conference: 2017 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC). DOI:10.1109/GHTC.2017.8239315
Major, M. J., & Fey, N. P. (2017). Considering passive mechanical properties and patient user motor performance in lower limb prosthesis design optimization to enhance rehabilitation outcomes. Physical Therapy Reviews, 22(3–4), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2017.1346033
Manz, S., Valette, R., Damonte, F., Avanci Gaudio, L., Gonzalez-Vargas, J., Sartori, M., Dosen, S., & Rietman, J. (2022). A review of user needs to drive the development of lower limb prostheses. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 19(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984- 022-01097-1
Merola, M. (2018). Tribological characterization and in-silico wear assessment of lower limb joint prosthesis.
Mutambu, T. (2021). Parametric Prosthetics: Creating a digital workflow for individualised design. Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
Of, E., Foot, A. P., Increased, W., Adaptability, C., & Walking, S. (2021). Effects of a prosthetic foot with increased coronal adaptability on cross-slope walking. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal, 4(1), 1–11.
Olesnavage, K. M., & Winter, A. G. (2018). A novel framework for quantitatively connecting the mechanical design of passive prosthetic feet to lower leg trajectory. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 26(8), 1544–1555.
Versluys, R., Beyl, P., Damme, M. V., Desomer, A., Ham, R. V., & Lefeber, D. (2009). Prosthetic feet: State-of-the-art review and the importance of mimicking human ankle–foot biomechanics. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4(2), 65–75.
Downloads
Published
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this proceedings agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the Nusantara Science and Technology Proceedings right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this proceeding.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the proceedings published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this proceeding.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access).
