Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees

References 

1. Appoldt F, Bennett L, Contini R. Stump-socket pressure in lower extremity prostheses. J Biomech. 1968;1:247–257
   • MEDLINE
2. Sanders JE, Daly CH. Interface pressures and shear stresses: sagittal plane angular alignment effects in three trans-tibial amputee case studies. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1999;23:21–29
   • MEDLINE
3. Sanders JE, Bell DM, Okumura RM, Dralle AJ. Effects of alignment changes on stance phase pressures and shear stresses on transtibial amputees: measurements from 13 transducer sites. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998;6:21–31
   • MEDLINE
4. Sonck WA, Cockrell JL, Koepke GH. Effect of liner materials on interface pressures in below-knee prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1970;51:666–9
5. Naeff M, van Pijkeren T. Dynamic pressure measurements at the interface between residual limb and socket – the relationship between pressure distribution, comfort, and brim shape. Bull Prosthet Res. 1980;10–33:35–50
6. Silver-Thorn MB, Childress DS. Sensitivity of below-knee residual limb/prosthetic socket interface pressures to variations in socket design. In: Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of ISPO, Chicago, IL, 1992. p. 148
7. Naylor PFD. Experimental friction blisters. Br J Dermatol. 1955;67:327–344
   • MEDLINE
8. Powers CM, Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E. Influence of prosthetic foot design on sound limb loading in adults with unilateral below-knee amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:825–829
   • MEDLINE
9. Arya AP, Lees A, Nirula HC, Klenerman L. A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1995;19:37–45
   • MEDLINE
10. Prince F, Allard P, Therrien RG, McFadyen BJ. Running gait impulse asymmetries in below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1992;16:19–24
    • MEDLINE
11. Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E, Shanfield SL. Below-knee amputee gait with dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990;27:369–384
    • MEDLINE
12. Menard MR, McBride ME, Sanderson DJ, Murray DD. Comparative biomechanical analysis of energy-storing prosthetic feet. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:451–458
    • MEDLINE
13. Lehmann JF, Price R, Boswell-Bessette S, Dralle A, Questad K. Comprehensive analysis of dynamic elastic response feet: Seattle Ankle/Lite Foot versus SACH foot. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:853–861
    • MEDLINE
14. Sanders JE, Lam D, Dralle AJ, Okumura R. Interface pressures and shear stresses at thirteen socket sites on two persons with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1997;34:19–43
    • MEDLINE
15. Sanders JE, Miller RA, Berglund DN, Zachariah SG. A modular six-directional force sensor for prosthetic assessment: a technical note. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1997;34:195–202
    • MEDLINE
16. Schreiner RE, Sanders JE. A silhouetting shape sensor for the residual limb of a below-knee amputee. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1995;3:242–253
17. Zachariah SG, Sanders JE, Turkiyyah GM. Automated hexahedral mesh generation from biomedical image data: Applications in limb prosthetics. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1996;4:91–102
    • MEDLINE
18. Hafner BJ, Zachariah SG, Sanders JE. Automated alignment of contour pairs: a hybrid approach with applications to prosthetics. In: RESNA '98 Annual Conference, 1998:272–4
19. Steege JW, Childress DS. Finite element prediction of pressure at the below-knee socket interface. In: Davies RM, Donovan RG, Spiers RW, editors. Report of ISPO Workshop on CAD CAM in Prosthetics and Orthotics Seattle, June 1988:71–82
20. Sanders JE, Daly CH, Burgess EM. Interface shear stresses during ambulation with a below-knee prosthetic limb. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1992;29:1–8
    • MEDLINE
21. Vannah WM, Childress DS. Modelling the mechanics of narrowly contained soft tissues: the effects of specification of Poisson's ratio. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1993;30:205–209
    • MEDLINE
22. Zachariah SG, Sanders JE. Finite element estimates of interface stress in the trans-tibial prosthesis using gap elements are different from those using automated contact. J Biomech 2000;33:895–9
23. Kenedi RM, Gibson T, Daly CH. Bio-engineering studies of the human skin II. In: Kenedi RM, editor. Biomechanics and Related Bio-Engineering Topics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1965:147–58
24. Kydd WL, Daly CH, Nansen D. Variation in the response to mechanical stress of human soft tissues as related to age. J Prosthet Dent. 1974;32:493–500
    • Full-Text PDF (483 KB)
25. Sanders JE, Greve JM, Mitchell SB, Zachariah SG. Material properties of commonly-used interface materials and their static coefficients of friction with skin and socks. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998;35:161–176
    • MEDLINE
26. Naylor PFD. The skin surface and friction. Br J Dermatol. 1955;67:239–248
    • MEDLINE