Transcript Document 7413242

Active Ankle/Foot
Orthotic
Client:
Dr. Robert Pryzbelski
Advisor:
Professor Brenda Ogle
Team Members:
Jessica Hause - Co-leader
Erin Main - Co-leader
Joshua White - Communicator
Anthony Schuler - BWIG
Emily Andrews - BSAC
Presentation Outline





Problem Statement
Background
Summary of PDS
Current Orthotics
Design Alternatives






Spring
Joint
Material
Design Matrix
Future Work
References
Problem Statement




Orthotic for patients with
neuropathies affecting gait
Actively enhances forefoot
propulsion
Increases proprioception
and balance
Supports ankle weakness
Background

Neuropathy






Stroke
Charcot-Marie Tooth
Multiple Sclerosis
Plantar & Dorsiflexion
Foot Drop
Normal Gait
Summary of PDS




Stability and
support
Aids propulsion
Weight-bearing
Under $300



Universal vs.
custom-fit
Light, strong and
durable
Thermoplastics,
biopolymers, nanofibers, neoprene
Current Orthotics
Spring Design



Thermoplastic
90° angle
Leaf spring in sole aids propulsion
Joint Design



Thermoplastic
Two pieces connected by joint
Tamarack joint assists plantar and dorsiflexion
Material Design



Memory material
High energy return
Material assists plantar flexion and dorsiflexion
Design Matrix
Balance/
Stability
(0.05)
Propulsion/
Push-off
(0.25)
Material
(0.25)
Foot Clearance
(0.15)
Spring
$500
(0.6)
Ankle
Brace
(0.3)
Spring with
rounded toe
(0.75)
Thermoplastic
with lining
(0.75)
Molded at
90 degrees
(0.45)
2.85
Joint
$400
(0.9)
Stirrup
(0.25)
3/4 cut,
Tamarack joint
(1.25)
Thermoplastic
with lining
(1)
Joint assists
with dorsiflexion
(0.75)
4.15
$700
(0.3)
Stirrup
(onesided)
(0.2)
Energy return
material
(1.5)
Carbon
nanofiber
(1.75)
Memory material
(0.9)
4.65
Cost
(0.3)
Material
Total
Future Work





Continue biomechanics research
Perform gait analysis
Finalize design
Build prototype
Perform prototype testing
References














http://www.footankle.com/ankle-foot.htm
http://www.firsttoserve.com/CatalogOrthotics/Lower_Extremity/Custom_Ankle_Foot_Orthotic_AFO/
http://www.dafo.com/index.cfm?pageID=2143
http://leedergroup.com/
http://www.beckerorthopedic.com/tamarack/t5.jpg
http://www.ottobock.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-3F574DD15FE72259/ob_com_en/Bedienungsanleitung_28U11_WalkOn.pdf
http://www.bostonpedorthic.com/orthotics.asp
http://www.germesonline.com/direct/dbimage/50066106/Leaf_Spring.jpg
http://www.springhouston.com/
http://www.doereport.com/enlargeexhibit.php?ID=842
http://www.germesonline.com/direct/dbimage/50066106/Leaf_Spring.jpg
https://secure.roycemedical.com/images/products/AFOLeafSpring.jpg
http://www.mda.org/publications/fa-cmt.html
http://sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca/gait/normal/walk.gif
Spring Design
(Pros and Cons)
Pros
•
•
•
Cost efficient
Ankle stability
Durable
Cons
•
•
•
•
Over-coverage can
cause excessive heat
Poor propulsion
Bulky
Restricted range of
motion
Joint Design
(Pros and Cons)
Pros
•
•
•
Cost
Propulsion
Foot clearance
Cons
•
•
•
Bulky
Poor breath ability
Inflexible sole
Material Design
(Pros and Cons)
Pros
•
•
•
•
•
Lightweight
Flexible
Propulsion
Foot clearance
Durable
Cons
•
•
•
Poor stability and
support
Cost
Availability of materials