黑料网

Lower appendage; Lower leg foot prostheses; Controlled lower leg foot prostheses

Introduction

Controlled lower leg foot prostheses have seen striking headways as of late, reforming the field of prosthetics by upgrading portability, solace, and generally speaking personal satisfaction for tragically handicapped people. This brief summary provides a concise overview of significant advancements in powered ankle-foot prosthetics, including design, control system, and user experience innovations.

Description

Ongoing steps in materials science and designing have prompted the advancement of lightweight and solid parts, adding to more regular and energy-proficient prosthetic plans. Propels in the consolidation of carbon fiber composites, adaptable joints, and physically enlivened structures have brought about prostheses that better copy the biomechanics of a human lower leg, further developing step elements and decreasing the actual weight on handicapped people [1].

Control systems

One of the critical forward leaps in fueled lower leg foot prostheses lies in the refinement of control frameworks. Myoelectric control, where electromyographic signals from remaining muscles are utilized to order the prosthesis, has become more modern, taking into account more natural and responsive developments. Also, the coordination of sensor advances, like accelerometers and gyrators, empowers ongoing changes and versatile reactions to changes in landscape, further upgrading client certainty and security [2,3].

Energy storage and return

Headways in energy capacity and return systems are urgent for recreating the propulsive capability of an organic lower leg. Advancements in battery innovation, combined with further developed energy-proficient actuators, have broadened the functional existence of controlled prostheses [4,5]. Energy collecting techniques, like regenerative slowing down, add to expanded generally proficiency, permitting clients to explore changed landscapes with diminished exhaustion [6,7].

User experience and customization

An emphasis on client focused plan has prompted a more customized and agreeable experience for prosthetic clients. Customization choices, including flexible lower leg solidness and variable walk designs, take into account individualized tuning to match client inclinations and action levels [8,9]. Human-machine interface improvements, for example, cell phone applications for continuous changes, add to a consistent combination of the prosthesis into the client's day to day existence [10,11].

Challenges and future directions

While critical headway has been made, challenges remain, including the requirement for improved power, reasonableness, and far reaching availability. Improved feedback systems, the integration of artificial intelligence for predictive control, and addressing the psychosocial aspects of prosthetic use to further optimize the user experience are potential future research directions [12].

Conclusion

In the field of prosthetics, advancements in powered anklefoot prostheses represent a paradigm shift. These prostheses are increasingly providing individuals with lower limb amputations with a more natural and adaptable solution thanks to advancements in design, control systems, energy storage, and user customization. Powered ankle-foot prostheses' capabilities and accessibility could be further enhanced through ongoing research and collaboration between engineers, clinicians, and users, ultimately enhancing the lives of amputees worldwide.

1. Werner A, Jäger M, Schmitz H, Krauspe R (2003). . Klin Padiatr. 215: 332-337.

, ,

2. Ji JH, Park SE, Song IS, Kang H, Ha JY, et al. (2014). . Clin Orthop Surg. 6: 365-372.

, ,

3. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014). . Lancet. 384: 1437-1445.

, ,

4. Rytter S, Egund N, Jensen LK, Bonde JP (2009). . J Occup Med Toxicol.

, ,

5. Van Manen MD, Nace J, Mont MA (2012). . J Am Osteopath Assoc. 112: 709-715.

,

6. Chang MJ, Lim H, Lee NR, Moon YW (2014). . Knee Surg Relat Res. 26: 6.

, ,

7. Cram P, Lu X, Kates SL, Singh JA, Li Y, et al. (2012). . JAMA. 308: 1227-1236.

, ,

8. Tay KS, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Chia SL, Tay DK, et al. (2013). . Ann Acad Med Singapore. 42: 178-183.

,

9. Completo A, Simões JA, Fonseca F (2009). . Knee. 16: 275-279.

, ,

10. Wood GC, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB (2009). . Clin Orthop Relat Res. 467: 810-817.

, ,

11. Petersen KK, Simonsen O, Laursen MB, Nielsen TA, Rasmussen S, et al. (2015). . Clin J Pain. 31: 1-6.

, ,

12. Stambough JB, Clohisy JC, Barrack RL, Nunley RM, Keeney JA (2014). . Bone Joint J. 96: 1657-1662.

, ,