Cover
Vol. 25 No. 1 (2025)

Published: September 9, 2025

Pages: 1-6

Original Article

Comfort Ability of a Transtibial Amputee According to a Biomechanical Comparison Between SACH, Single-Axis and Multi-Axis Feet Using GRF and Interface Pressure Tests

Hayder R. Maibed 1 Jumaa S. Chiad 2 Hassanein I. Khalaf 1 Borhen Louhichi 3
1 Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq
2 Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq
3 Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, 11432, Saudi Arabia
History
  • Received: September 18, 2024
  • Revised: November 24, 2024
  • Accepted: December 29, 2024
  • Available Online: August 16, 2025
DOI

https://doi.org/10.33971/bjes.25.1.1

Abstract

Individuals with special needs who use lower limb prostheses (artificial devices designed to replace missing body parts) have specific sociocultural requirements that have driven the development of prosthetic feet. This study conducted a biomechanical analysis of three types of prosthetic feet (SACH, single-axis, and multi-axis) by comparing their biomechanical properties using ground reaction forces and an F-socket. The goal is to enhance prosthetic technology and improve the user experience for below-knee amputees by examining how different foot types affect stresses in below-knee prosthetic limbs during daily activities. The patient case study involves a 28-year-old man weighing 71 kg, who underwent a below-knee amputation of his left limb due to injuries sustained during battles with ISIS. Ground reaction force (GRF) testing is crucial for determining the forces exerted on a patient's feet while walking. Additionally, the Interface Pressure test was performed to measure the pressure between the remaining lower limb and the below-knee prosthetic socket using a pressure sensor. The healthy foot (right leg) served as the reference for comparison. The results of this study on GRF and knee force for various prosthetic feet provide valuable insights into their performance during gait analysis. The multi-axis foot demonstrated superior capabilities, potentially enhancing user mobility and quality of life. Furthermore, the F-socket test indicated that the multi-axis foot offers the best balance of pressure distribution, dynamic performance, and comfort, making it well-suited for adapting to different surfaces necessary for an active lifestyle.

Keywords

References

  1. M. S. A.-D. Tahir, S. S. Hassan, J. S. Chiad, “Kinematic analysis for passive multi-axes ankle joint,” Pollack Periodica, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 36-41, 2022.
  2. A. H. Jeryo, J. S. Chiad, W. S. Abbod, “Boosting mechanical properties of Orthoses - foot ankle by adding carbon Nanotube particles,” Materials Science Forum, Vol. 1039, pp. 518-536, 2021.
  3. D. B. Popovic, and T. Sinkjaer, Control of movement for the physically disabled, Springer Verlag London, 2000. ISBN 1852332794, 9781852332792.
  4. N. A. Jebur, F. A. Abdulla, and A. F. Hussein, “Experimental and numerical analysis of below knee prosthetic socket,” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), Vol. 9, Issue 8, pp. 1-8, 2018.
  5. A. P. Arya, A. Lees, H. C. Nirula, L. Klenerman, “A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 37-45, 1995.
  6. H. Gholizadeh, N. A. Abu Osman, A. Eshraghi, N. Arifin, T. Y. Chung, “A comparison of pressure distributions between two types of sockets in a bulbous stump,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, Vol. 40, Issue 4, pp. 509-516, 2016.
  7. M.-J. Hsu, D. H. Nielsen, S.-J. Lin-Chan, D. Shurr, “The effects of prosthetic foot design on physiologic measurements, self-selected walking velocity, and physical activity in people with transtibial amputation,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 87, Issue 1, pp. 123-129, 2006.
  8. R. S. Hanspal, K. Fisher and R. Nieveen, “Prosthetic Socket Fit Comfort Score,” Disabil Rehabil, Vol. 25, Issue 22, pp. 1278-1280, 2003.
  9. M. J. Highsmith, J. T. Kahle, A. Lewandowski, T. D. Klenow, J. J. Orriola, R. M. Miro, O. T. Hill, S. U. Raschke, M. S. Orendurff, J. T. Highsmith, B. S. Sutton, “Economic Evaluations of Interventions for Transtibial Amputees: A Scoping Review of Comparative Studies,” Technology and Innovation, Vol. 18, Issue 2-3, pp. 85-98, 2016. https://doi.org/10.21300/18.2-3.2016.85
  10. A. Richardson, M. Dillon, “User experience of transtibial prosthetic liners: A systematic review,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, Vol. 41, Issue 1, pp. 6-18, 2017.
  11. D. A. Winter, “Kinematic and Kinetic Patterns in Human Gait: Variability and Compensating Effects,” Human Movement Science, Vol. 3, Issue 1-2, pp. 51-76, 1984.
  12. J. S. Chiad and M. S. A-D. Tahir, “Enhancement of the mechanical properties for above-knee prosthetic socket by using the bamboo fiber,” International Journal of Energy and Environment, Vol.8, Issue 4, pp. 331-338, 2017.
  13. C. Mummolo, L. Mangialardi, and J. H. Kim, “Quantifying dynamic characteristics of human walking for comprehensive gait cycle,” ASME, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, Vol. 135, Issue 9, 2013.
  14. E. A. Al-Fakih, N. A. Abu Osman, and F. R. M. Adikan, “Techniques for interface stress measurements within prosthetic sockets of transtibial amputees: A review of the past 50 years of research,” Sensors, Vol. 16, Issue 7, 2016.