This research proposes a new prosthetic foot design with an adjustable rollover mechanism for low-activity amputees (K-levels 1–2) to improve walking symmetry and provide a more natural and comfortable walking experience. The design considers key factors such as foot length, weight, and height, with height being an essential factor affecting the rollover radius. The prosthetic foot was developed with adjustable rollover radii to accommodate different height categories. The strength and rollover radius were verified through finite element analysis with ANSYS 2021R2. Simulation results showed that the dorsiflexion angle ranged from 10.2° to 11.5°, increasing progressively from D00 to D10 and D11. A prototype was fabricated and evaluated in the single-subject pilot study to assess its effectiveness in improving gait symmetry using the symmetry index. The subject was a 62-year-old male (K-level 2) with a weight of 59 kg and a height of 159 cm. The results indicate that the prosthetic foot can adjust the rollover radius to 289, 297, and 323 mm, with the symmetry index improving as the rollover radius increases. The symmetry index of rollover radius for the prosthetic foot with rollover radius of 289, 297, and 323 mm, and SACH foot are 0.03%, −0.77%, −7.12%, and −11.62%, respectively. And the symmetry index of step time for the prosthetic foot with rollover radius of 289, 297, and 323 mm, and SACH foot are −4.14%, −11.07%, −18.19%, and −21.30%, respectively. In conclusion, an adjustable rollover prosthetic foot for low-activity amputees has developed. The single-subject pilot study showed that the symmetry index of the prosthetic foot with 289 mm rollover radius was better than the SACH foot in terms of rollover radius and step time of 99.7% and 80.5%, respectively.
World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Global report on assistive technology. Report no. 9789240049451. World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2022.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Lower Limb Prosthetic Workgroup consensus document. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2016.
3.
SchaffalitzkyEGallagherPMaclachlanM, et al. Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users. Disabil Rehabil2011; 33: 1314–1323.
4.
DillonMPMajorMJKalufB, et al. Predict the Medicare functional classification level (K-level) using the amputee mobility predictor in people with unilateral transfemoral and transtibial amputation: a pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int2018; 42: 191–197.
5.
United Nations. World population ageing 2017. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, 2017.
LaferrierJZGroffAHaleS, et al. A review of commonly used prosthetic feet for developing countries: a call for research and development. J Nov Physiother2018; 8: 1–10.
8.
BarocioEBustamanteKGonzalezRV, et al. Comparison via roll-over shape of the kinematic performance of two low-cost foot prostheses. In: 5th IEEE RAS/EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, 2014, pp. 1028–1032. IEEE.
9.
AdamczykPGCollinsSHKuoAD.The advantages of a rolling foot in human walking. J Exp Biol2006; 209: 3953–3963.
10.
AdamczykPGKuoAD.Mechanical and energetic consequences of rolling foot shape in human walking. J Exp Biol2013; 216: 2722–2731.
11.
CurtzeCHofALvan KeekenHG, et al. Comparative roll-over analysis of prosthetic feet. J Biomech2009; 42: 1746–1753.
12.
OlesnavageKMWinterAG. Design and qualitative testing of a prosthetic foot with rotational ankle and metatarsal joints to mimic physiological roll-over shape. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, 2015, p. V05AT08A035. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
13.
GohJCSolomonidisSESpenceWD, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of SACH and uniaxial feet. Prosthet Orthot Int1984; 8: 147–154.
14.
BonnetXAddeJNBlanchardF, et al. Evaluation of a new geriatric foot versus the solid ankle cushion heel foot for low-activity amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int2015; 39: 112–118.
15.
ParadisiFDelussuASBrunelliS, et al. The conventional non-articulated SACH or a multiaxial prosthetic foot for hypomobile transtibial amputees? A clinical comparison on mobility, balance, and quality of life. Sci World J2015; 2015: 261801.
16.
KrajbichJIPinzurMSPotterBK, et al. (eds). Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies: surgical, prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles. 4th ed.American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2016.
17.
HansenAHMeierMRSessomsPH, et al. The effects of prosthetic foot roll-over shape arc length on the gait of trans-tibial prosthesis users. Prosthet Orthot Int2006; 30: 286–299.
18.
SamMChildressDHansenA, et al. The ‘Shape&Roll’ prosthetic foot: I. Design and development of appropriate technology for low-income countries. Med Confl Surviv2004; 20: 294–306.
19.
SethMCoylePCPohligRT, et al. Gait asymmetry is associated with performance-based physical function among adults with lower-limb amputation. Physiother Theory Pract2022; 38: 3108–3118.
20.
AlexanderLDBlackSEPattersonKK, et al. Association between gait asymmetry and brain lesion location in stroke patients. Stroke2009; 40: 537–544.
21.
EllisRGHowardKCKramR.The metabolic and mechanical costs of step time asymmetry in walking. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci2013; 280: 20122784.
22.
NolanLWitADudziñskiK, et al. Adjustments in gait symmetry with walking speed in trans-femoral and trans-tibial amputees. Gait Posture2003; 17: 142–151.
23.
UchytilJJandackaDZahradnikD, et al. Temporal-spatial parameters of gait in transfemoral amputees: Comparison of bionic and mechanically passive knee joints. Prosthet Orthot Int2014; 38: 199–203.
24.
HofALGazendamMGSinkeWE.The condition for dynamic stability. J Biomech2005; 38(1): 1–8.
25.
McGeerT.Passive dynamic walking. Int J Rob Res1990; 9: 62–82.
26.
HansenAHChildressDSKnoxEH.Roll-over shapes of human locomotor systems: effects of walking speed. Clin Biomech2004; 19: 407–414.
27.
HansenAHChildressDS.Effects of shoe heel height on biologic rollover characteristics during walking. J Rehabil Res Dev2004; 41: 547–554.
28.
JurcaAŽabkarJDžeroskiS.Analysis of 1.2 million foot scans from North America, Europe and Asia. Sci Rep2019; 9: 19155.
29.
MutluAKharootyMDYakutY.The effect of segmental weight of prosthesis on hemodynamic responses and energy expenditure of lower extremity amputees. J Phys Ther Sci2017; 29: 629–634.
30.
BateniHOlneySJ.Effect of the weight of prosthetic components on the gait of transtibial amputees. J Prosthet Orthot2004; 16: 113–120.
31.
SinhaRvan den HeuvelWJArokiasamyP.Adjustments to amputation and an artificial limb in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int2014; 38: 115–121.
32.
Ottobock. Function Matrix – Prosthetic Feet. Ottobock, 2012.
33.
BeggRKSparrowWA.Ageing effects on knee and ankle joint angles at key events and phases of the gait cycle. J Med Eng Technol2006; 30: 382–389.
34.
TorburnLSchweigerGPPerryJ, et al. Below-knee amputee gait in stair ambulation: a comparison of stride characteristics using five different prosthetic feet. Clin Orthop Relat Res1994; 303: 185–192.
35.
HoudijkHWezenbergDHakL, et al. Energy storing and return prosthetic feet improve step length symmetry while preserving margins of stability in persons with transtibial amputation. J Neuroeng Rehabil2018; 15: 76.
36.
TakahashiKZStanhopeSJ.Mechanical energy profiles of the combined ankle-foot system in normal gait: insights for prosthetic designs. Gait Posture2013; 38: 818–823.
37.
Materials MCA. Ketron™ 1000 PEEK. Mitsubishi Chemical Group, 2025.
MahmoodiPAristodemouSRansingRS, et al. Prosthetic foot design optimisation based on roll-over shape and ground reaction force characteristics. Proc Inst Mech Eng C J Mech Eng Sci2017; 231: 3093–3103.
43.
WannopJWWorobetsJTStefanyshynDJ.Normalization of ground reaction forces, joint moments, and free moments in human locomotion. J Appl Biomech2012; 28: 665–676.
44.
ISO 10328:2016. Prosthetics—Structural testing of lower-limb prostheses—Requirements and test methods, 2016.
45.
GerberH.Bestimmung der zulässigen spannungen in eisen-constructionen. Wolf, 1874.
46.
GaileyRSRoachKEApplegateEB, et al. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2002; 83: 613–627.
47.
Vicon. Plug-in Gait reference guide. Vicon Motion Systems Limited, 2021, p. 107.
48.
HansenAGardSChildressD. The determination of foot/ankle roll-over shape: clinical and research applications. IEEE. 2000, pp. 159–165.
49.
BjörklundGAlricssonMSvantessonU.Using bilateral functional and anthropometric tests to define symmetry in cross-country skiers. J Hum Kinet2017; 60: 9–18.
50.
ShapiroSSWilkMB.An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika1965; 52: 591–611.
51.
RosnerB (ed.). Fundamentals of Biostatistics. 7th ed.Thomson-Brooks/Cole, 2006.
52.
HansenAHSamMChildressDS.The effective foot length ratio: a potential tool for characterization and evaluation of prosthetic feet. J Prosthet Orthot2004; 16: 41–45.
