Next Article in Journal
Implementing a Novel Machine Learning System for Nutrition Education in Diabetes Mellitus Nutritional Clinic: Predicting 1-Year Blood Glucose Control
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Barefoot and Shod Conditions on the Kinematics and Kinetics of the Lower Extremities in Alternating Jump Rope Skipping—A One-Dimensional Statistical Parameter Mapping Study
Previous Article in Journal
Treatment of Severe Pulmonary Regurgitation in Enlarged Native Right Ventricular Outflow Tracts: Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement with Three-Dimensional Printing Guidance
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effectiveness of Hard Insoles for Plantar Pressure in Cycling: A Crossover Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Bioengineering
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/bioengineering10101138
bioengineering-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Prosthetic Foot Research Work: 2000 to 2022

by
Qiu-Qiong Shi
1,
Kit-Lun Yick
1,2,*,
Jinlong Wu
3,
Xujia Huang
4,
Chi-Yung Tse
5 and
Mei-Ki Chan
2
1
Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence in Design, Hong Kong, China
2
School of Fashion and Textiles, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
3
College of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
4
School of Recreational Sports and Tourism, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China
5
Centre for Orthopaedic Surgery, Hong Kong, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bioengineering 2023, 10(10), 1138; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101138
Submission received: 21 August 2023 / Revised: 24 September 2023 / Accepted: 27 September 2023 / Published: 28 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomechanics and Bionics in Sport and Exercise, Volume II)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to highlight recent research work on topics around prosthetic feet through a scientometric analysis and historical review. The most cited publications from the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection database were identified and analyzed from 1 January 2000 to 31 October 2022. Original articles, reviews with full manuscripts, conference proceedings, early access documents, and meeting abstracts were included. A scientometric visualization analysis of the bibliometric information related to the publications, including the countries, institutions, journals, references, and keywords, was conducted. A total of 1827 publications met the search criteria in this study. The related publications grouped by year show an overall trend of increase during the two decades from 2000 to 2022. The United States is ranked first in terms of overall influence in this field (n = 774). The Northwestern University has published the most papers on prosthetic feet (n = 84). Prosthetics and Orthotics International has published the largest number of studies on prosthetic feet (n = 151). During recent years, a number of studies with citation bursts and burst keywords (e.g., diabetes, gait, pain, and sensor) have provided clues on the hotspots of prosthetic feet and prosthetic foot trends. The findings of this study are based on a comprehensive analysis of the literature and highlight the research topics on prosthetic feet that have been primarily explored. The data provide guidance to clinicians and researchers to further studies in this field.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Around 57.7 million people worldwide underwent limb amputation in 2017, with Asia having the highest number of amputations, followed by Western Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and then North America [1]. Approximately 150,000 patients undergo a lower extremity amputation (LEA) in the United States each year [2], and the number of people who will be living with an amputation in the United States is estimated to be approximately 3.6 million by 2050 [3,4]. In China, 1.58 million Chinese people experienced lower limb loss in 2006, and the number of Chinese people who will be living with an amputation is estimated to reach 2.33 million in 2030 [5]. However, since walking is an essential part of daily life, those with an LEA suffer from significant loss of mobility, which is inconvenient and causes hardship [4,6]. Prosthesis use can disguise the partial or complete loss of a lower limb in appearance, while assisting those with an LEA to walk or participate in daily activities and enjoy a certain amount of physical movement and ability to self-care [7,8,9]. In recent years, there has been growing research interest on prosthetic feet. Publications include review papers, original articles, conference proceedings, and case reports which have investigated the outcome measures of prosthetic feet [7,10,11,12,13,14,15], the effects of prosthetic feet on those with an LEA [11,12,13,16], design guidelines and principles [9,17,18], and the latest developments and trends [8,17,19] of prostheses for lower limb amputees.
Although the aforementioned studies shed light on prosthetic feet, they only focus on one specific field in prosthetic foot research, and a more comprehensive scientometric analysis of the prosthetic foot is lacking in the literature. Scientometrics is used to evaluate and analyze scientific research in a given subject or field [20]. Compared to descriptive literature reviews (e.g., conventional reviews), scientometrics has been proven to have the advantage of efficiently identifying critical issues and guiding future research work [20,21,22]. In this article, a scientometric analysis which includes a bibliometric analysis is carried out. Bibliometric analysis is used to quantitatively explore and identify the scientific structures and trends (e.g., countries, journals, publications, and institutions) of the target study via statistics and mathematics [20,21,23]. The relevant nodes and useful information can be extracted and identified by using this method [20]. Scientific mapping can effectively facilitate bibliometric visualization to provide new perspectives and insights, as well as suggest future research directions [20,23]. However, a scientometric analysis of prosthetic feet has not yet been performed in the literature.
The objective of this study was to comprehensively explore the research trends and hotspots from 2000 to 2022, as well as suggested future research directions related to prosthetic feet by utilizing the scientometric method. The statistical results of the keyword analysis were summarized and categorized, which had a direct influence on uncovering critical evidence and highlighted emerging trends in prosthetic foot research work.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Acquisition and Search Strategy

Two researchers developed the search strategy for screening key information to define keywords related to our topic and exclude unmeaningful words (e.g., population, and review), while another two experienced research librarians double checked this strategy to prevent researcher bias [24,25]. The search was conducted on 31 October 2022 in the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. The WoS Core Collection database includes the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) and social sciences citation index (SSCI) which were systematically searched from 1 January 2000 to 31 October 2022. The WoS is a comprehensive and the most frequently used database for bibliometric research in previous studies [20,23]. The scientometric research process is shown in Figure 1.
We used “prosthe*” and “foot” or “feet” as the topical retrieval terms. Original articles, reviews with full manuscripts, conference proceedings, early access documents, and meeting abstracts were included. Other documents, including letters, corrections, editorial materials, and literature reviews with briefly summarized publications, consensus statements, and guidelines were excluded due to the lack of high-level scientific metrics in the field. The language was restricted to English. A total of 1851 articles were included for further analysis.

2.2. Data Extraction and Analysis

Microsoft Excel 2022 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA), VOSviewer (version 1.6.15), Origin, CiteSpace (version V), and Charticulator were selected for the bibliometric analysis with bibliometric information related to the publications, including country, institution, journal, references, keywords, and categories [26,27]. Some of the other bibliometric information includes the number of publications, impact factor, H-index, degree of centrality, strength of linkage, year of publication, and occurrence/citation bursts were extracted and analyzed. CiteSpace (6.1.R3) was applied to detect the keywords and references with citation bursts, while the citation bursts included strength and duration and indicated that a paper was highly cited in a certain period [28]. Centrality is based on the theory of social network analysis by counting the number of shortest paths between other nodes in interest [29]. The impact factor in this study is based on the Journal Citation Reports (2022). The parameters include time slices (2000–2022), types of nodes, and selection criteria (i.e., the 25 most cited or representative publications or keywords). VOSviewer was used to construct and visualize the bibliometric map.

3. Results

3.1. Publication Outputs

A total of 1827 publications met the search criteria. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the publications by year between 1 January 2000 and 31 October 2022. The number of papers doubled between 2000 and 2008, while there was a stable increase between 2009 and 2012, and more related papers were published after 2013. However, there was a drop in 2015 but an increase in 2017 again, with a stable increase afterwards.

3.2. Distribution by Country and Institution

The network analysis of the scientific collaborations was conducted by using Citespace software. Figure 3 shows the collaborative relationships based on country for the top 10 countries with the highest number of collaborative publications between 2000 and 2022. The highest number of publications is found for the United States (774 or 42.3%), followed by the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and China, with more than 100 publications (25.7%). The centrality of the United States also ranks first (0.51), followed by Italy (0.25), and the United Kingdom (0.22) (see Table 1).
Table 2 presents the top 10 institutions with the highest number of publications including centers, institutes, and universities. Northwestern University ranks first (84), followed by the University of Washington (60), and the University of Michigan. It can be observed that 9 of the top 10 institutions are in the United States.

3.3. Distribution by Journal

The number of publications found in the 15 journals with the most publications on prosthetic feet varies from 26 to 151 (average 53.7), accounting for 44.037% of the total number of publications (see Table 3). Among these journals, Prosthetics and Orthotics International published the most articles (151), followed by Foot and Ankle International (85), and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (67). Eight of the fifteen journals are located in the United States, five in the UK, and the remaining two in Ireland and Switzerland, respectively. Among these top 15 journals, the impact factor ranges from 1.277 to 6.558 (average 3.208). Seven journals have an impact factor > 3.000, which published 297 (or 16.3%) of these papers from 2000 to 2022. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume (6.558) has the highest impact factor among the top 15 journals, followed by the Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (5.208), and IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (4.528).

3.4. Analysis of References

Prosthetic foot-related papers with the largest citation burst from 2000 to 2022 are listed in Table 4. In the first decade of 2000 to about 2010, the authors with the largest citation bursts (strength, time spam) were led by Gitter (1991) (14.04, 2000–2012), followed by Torburn (1990) (13.13, 2000–2013), and then Lehmann (1993) (11.47, 2000–2010). Shepherd (2017) (12.95, 2019–2022) has the largest citation burst at the end of 2022.

3.5. Analysis of Keywords

A keyword analysis was carried out to provide the hotspots and trends in prosthetic foot research work according to the number of occurrences. The keyword co-occurrence network is shown in Figure 4, where the node size and color represent the number of keywords and cluster, respectively. The different line colors show that the 2 keywords appear in an article. The largest node is gait. The keywords with citation bursts were further summarized, in which keywords were prioritized according to the number of citations during a given period of time (Figure 5). The keywords were categorized into four main areas: population, function, psychology, and technology. Figure 5A shows that diabetic patients are the main population studied in prosthetic foot research, followed by patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and individuals with osteomyelitis. The three main functions of the studied prosthetic feet include gait (e.g., movement, walking), energy (e.g., energy saving, energy storage), and balance of the user (Figure 5B). Pain is the main topic studied in the psychology realm (Figure 5C). Studies on prosthetic foot technologies focus the most on sensors, then robotics, and finally exoskeletons (Figure 5D).

4. Discussion

4.1. Main Findings

Scientometrics is used to comprehensively examine research work on prosthetic feet from 2000 to 2022. The major findings of the scientometric analysis are the top keywords with citation bursts for each category which systematically show the hotspots and future research directions regarding prosthetic feet, including population, function, psychology and technology.

4.2. Population

We found that the largest group of studies on LEA focuses on diabetes. Around 75% of LEAs are attributed to diabetes in the United States [30,31]. Diabetic foot is also the leading cause of amputation in Australia [32]. Previous hospital-based studies have reported that 53.3% of those with an LEA also have diabetes in Hong Kong [31,33]. Riandini et al. [34] reported that the highest amputation rates are found among those with diabetes (2008, 99.5/100,000; 2017, 95.0/100,000 people with diabetes), while amputation rates among non-diabetic Asians (i.e., Chinese, Malay, Indian, and others) are significantly lower (2008, 3.0/100,000; 2017, 2.1/100,00 individual without diabetes). Diabetic patients have 12 times higher risk of amputation when compared with non-diabetic individuals due to diabetic neuropathy [35,36,37]. Desveaux et al. [38] also found that Canadians with diabetes are 20 times more likely to be hospitalized for LEAs than non-diabetic Canadians. Diabetes is highly correlated with mortality after amputation [39]. The second largest group of individuals who might suffer from LEAs is those with arthritis-related diseases including osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid, ankle, and septic arthritis. Past studies have found that arthritis-related diseases are devastating, with a high potential for permanent disability and LEAs [40,41,42]. However, the results in this study show that the number of publications on LEAs among the elderly is still limited.

4.3. Function

In our study, the most frequently used keyword in prosthetic foot research work is gait. Gait is mostly found in studies on biomechanics, amputation, and rehabilitation (Figure 4). According to the burst frequency, gait (n = 1183, Figure 5B) is the major outcome to evaluate the functional performance of prosthetic feet in LEAs. Ghillebert et al. [13] found that 53% of the research publications in their study adopted biomechanical analysis as the outcome measure. Gard [11] used a quantitative gait analysis to fully describe the gait characteristics of those with an LEA and their rehabilitation progress. In quantitative gait analyses, measures such as spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic measures have been addressed [11,13,15]. The spatiotemporal measures are collected across both space and time [43], while primarily incorporating gait parameters such as walking speed [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93], cadence [46,53,56,75,76,94,95,96,97,98], stride length [49,53,56,64,75,96,99,100,101], step length [49,51,52,58,63,75,76,84,86,92,93,100,102,103,104,105,106,107], step width [64,70,75,84], stride time [104], stance time [46,49,51,52,53,54,56,58,62,64,65,66,69,70,71,76,80,84,85,87,90,91,92,93,95,96,98,99,104,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115], and swing time [46,52,56,58,61,64,65,66,69,70,87,90,95,96,99,101,108,111,114]. The kinematics are measured by using motion capture systems that acquire data on ranges of motion [44,46,49,50,52,53,54,56,57,58,59,61,62,63,64,65,66,69,70,75,77,79,80,81,82,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,96,99,102,104,106,107,108,111,112,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130], and center of motion [45,55,63,68,80,81,86,89,92,99,102,107,116,120,129,131]. The most frequently examined parameters of the kinetic measures include ground reaction forces [44,45,51,52,54,56,59,61,62,63,64,69,76,78,79,81,82,84,86,88,90,92,93,94,95,96,97,101,102,104,105,106,108,109,110,112,113,116,118,119,120,122,124,126,127,128,129,130,131,132], the center of pressure [52,55,84,89,105,107,109,110,112,119], power [46,50,52,55,56,57,58,59,63,71,77,78,79,80,81,83,85,87,88,89,92,93,94,98,99,100,102,104,106,108,109,114,115,116,117,120,121,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,133], and torque [46,50,52,55,56,57,58,59,63,71,77,78,79,80,81,83,85,87,88,89,92,94,98,99,100,104,106,108,109,114,115,116,117,120,121,123,124,125,126,127,128,130,131,133]. Most of the studies on gait have implemented experiments on a flat ground or during treadmill walking, with very few studies that use stairs [94,134,135] or assess walking on a slope [134]. Abnormal gait (e.g., externally rotated feet [136]) can be visually observed from the kinematic outcomes, which is useful for identifying the compensatory movement of those with an LEA during walking [11]. Sadeghi et al. [137] reported that reduced ankle power is found with the use of a prosthetic foot, while the increased power of the knee and hip joints is due to the residual limbs. The interface pressure [138] of the liner or socket is also a significant measurement that affects the mobility, wear comfort, and satisfaction of the amputee with their prosthetic foot.
Besides gait analyses, physiological measurements also include heart rate [19,47,95,100,103,134,139,140,141], oxygen consumption [57,58,67,72,73,74,81,86,103,123,129,131,134,139,140,142], and carbon dioxide production [57,58,74,81,103,123,129,131,134,139,140,142], which are used as indicators for evaluations of energy and metabolic costs with a prosthetic foot during walking. Previous studies also report measurements of energy expenditure in the form of questionnaires [47,49,50,53,54,57,58,60,61,62,67,68,70,75,81,83,95,98,119,120,123,134,140,142] like the visual analogue scale [54] and rate of perceived exertion [62,103,139]. The prosthetic foot is integrated into the involved lower extremities to facilitate the muscle–tendon units to interact with the skeletal system by generating, storing, dissipating, and transferring energy between segments [4,143,144], while stabilizing joints and controlling balance, thus saving more energy and allowing walking with less effort [4,145].

4.4. Psychology

Apart from gait and physical analyses, psychological variables associated with the use of a prosthetic foot (i.e., pain, mortality, trauma, perception, satisfaction, fear, and control) have also been measured to evaluate the rehabilitation outcomes for those with LEA. Psychological analyses are normally conducted by using a survey or carrying out an interview in a double-blinded study. Questionnaires like the Houghton scale [146,147], Locomotor Capabilities Index with a five-level ordinal scale [148,149,150], Mobility Section of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire [16,151,152], and prosthetic socket fit comfort score [16,153] are frequently used to understand the subjective feelings of lower limb amputees towards the prosthesis. Studies have found that over 50% of those with an LEA reported pain while using their prosthetic foot [154,155,156]. Pain and mental fear are high-risk factors for falls while walking [152], increasing mortality [39]. Singh and Prasad [39] found a mortality rate of 33% among the lower limb amputees in their study after three years of follow-up, which is significantly related to the absence of a prosthesis. More than half, or 57%, of those with an LEA reported dissatisfaction with the wear comfort of their prosthetic foot [155,156]. Their perception (e.g., wear comfort, trust, and security) of their prosthetic foot is linearly related to their physical activities [157], while also influencing their psychological well-being. They experience fear, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and lack of life satisfaction [158]. Bunce and Breakey [158] found that 71% of their study participants with an LEA had experienced some form of trauma. Psychological factors affect how they control their prosthesis [152]. However, higher self-efficacy, family, and social supports increase the physical activity of those with an LEA [157].

4.5. Technology

To enhance the physical abilities and psychological resilience of those with an LEA and who use a prosthesis during different physical activities, prosthetic foot technologies have undergone a substantial transformation over recent decades. The rapid development of sensory technologies can be observed from keyword searches. Sensors like ActiGraph (Pensacola, FL, USA) [48], ActivPALTM (PAL Technologies, Glasgow, Scotland) [157,159], FitBit One (Fitbit, CA, USA) [160], StepWatchTM (Modus Health, Washington, DC, USA) [7,57,60,62,86,98], Power Walker EX (Yamasa, Tokyo, Japan) [47], and inertial measurement units (i.e., ActiGraph GT9X Link, and Acti-Graph, Pensacola, FL, USA) [48], which are widely used to monitor and collect data of steps walked per day, walking speed, and energy consumption, help to provide a better understanding of the rehabilitation progress of lower extremity amputees and their sedentary lifestyle. Apart from the sensory systems applied to collect mobility data, more and more recent technology-related work on robotic prostheses provides biological configuration information of the residual muscles [161], while considering the neural interface for prosthesis control [162]. Residual muscles can still be activated by the brain and spinal cord after amputation surgery [121,163], as evidenced by researchers who have obtained electromyography (EMG) signals from the residual muscles (e.g., adductor magnus, gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, hamstring, quadriceps, soleus, and tibialis) as the neural inputs to recognize different locomotion modes [164,165,166]. However, controlling EMG-based robotic prostheses is still limited by the accuracy and quality of the EMG signals [161]. Meanwhile, recent innovations in embedded computing systems and sensors have improved the functions of powered exoskeleton prostheses. Kim and Oh [167] developed a prosthesis by using a magnetorheological damper as a torque actuator, which is adaptable to different walking speeds. Flex-Foot, a foot prosthesis, has been proven to provide greater power absorption during early midstance, and a higher plantarflexion moment and power generation in the late stance, thus facilitating energy storage in midstance, and energy return in the late stance [168]. Ottobock C-Leg® with a microprocessor knee can adapt to a wide range of mobilities (e.g., descending stairs, uneven terrain, or backward walking) [169].
To allow lower extremity amputees to walk more safely, naturally, and with ease during different locomotion modes, simulation technologies are used to assist with the development of prosthetic feet. Xu et al. [170] used kinetic modeling of control algorithms (i.e., Lagrange’s second kinetic equation, the governing equation, and constraint equation) to develop a lower limb prosthesis which can imitate the center of rotation of a knee joint accurately. Kim and Oh [167] developed a leg simulator to produce thigh movements in the horizontal, vertical, and rotational directions by modeling, so that dynamic data could be applied to develop prostheses for those with an LEA. In addition, 3D printing with composite fibers (e.g., carbon and glass fiber filaments), nylon, or metals is often used in clinical trials due to the reduction in the production time of prostheses, minimization of the costs, while improving the wear comfort to optimize prostheses for those with an LEA [171].

5. Conclusions

Scientometrics is applied to analyze studies in the literature from the SCI-E and SSCI databases. The findings of this study reveal the hotspots, key research directions, countries, institutions, and journals that focused on prosthetic feet from 2000 to 2022. Through an analysis of the keywords, we find that elderly diabetics are the largest group of lower extremity amputees, but research on prosthetic feet among the elderly who suffer from an LEA is still limited. Secondly, studies that focus on both physical and psychological parameters should be considered to evaluate the functions of prostheses with modern technologies. These findings not only show the current research hotspots but also reveal further research work for researchers and clinicians. The limitation is that the data for this study were obtained from the SCI-E and SSCI databases in the WoS from 2000 to 2022. While the top 25 articles with the highest citation bursts represent highly influential work in the literature for two decades, the current study msay not have captured all of the important articles in this field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.-L.Y. and Q.-Q.S.; methodology, Q.-Q.S. and J.W.; software, J.W. and X.H.; validation, Q.-Q.S., J.W. and X.H.; formal analysis, J.W. and X.H.; investigation, M.-K.C.; resources, J.W.; data curation, X.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.-Q.S.; writing—review and editing, K.-L.Y.; visualization, X.H.; supervision, K.-L.Y.; project administration, C.-Y.T.; funding acquisition, K.-L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Innovation and Technology Fund (ITS/133/21) and Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence in Design (RP1-2).

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. If you want to request the data from this study, please contact the corresponding author, Kit-lun Yick.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge financial support from the Innovation and Technology Fund (Project codes: ITS/133/21) and the Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence in Design (Project code: RP1-2) under the InnoHK Research Clusters for this research project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McDonald, C.L.; Westcott-McCoy, S.; Weaver, M.R.; Haagsma, J.; Kartin, D. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2021, 0309364620972258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Molina, C.S.; Faulk, J. Lower Extremity Amputation. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing Copyright© 2022; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ziegler-Graham, K.; MacKenzie, E.J.; Ephraim, P.L.; Travison, T.G.; Brookmeyer, R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Price, M.A.; Beckerle, P.; Sup, F.C. Design optimization in lower limb prostheses: A review. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2019, 27, 1574–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Xu, X.; Xu, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhong, K.; Zhang, H. Design of bionic active–passive hybrid-driven prosthesis based on gait analysis and simulation of compound control method. BioMed. Eng. OnLine 2021, 20, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gailey, R.; Allen, K.; Castles, J.; Kucharik, J.; Roeder, M. Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2008, 45, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mellema, M.; Gjøvaag, T. Reported Outcome Measures in Studies of Real-World Ambulation in People with a Lower Limb Amputation: A Scoping Review. Sensors 2022, 22, 2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kumar, P.K.; Charan, M.; Kanagaraj, S. Trends and challenges in lower limb prosthesis. IEEE Potentials 2017, 36, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rajťúková, V.; Michalíková, M.; Bednarčíková, L.; Balogová, A.; Živčák, J. Biomechanics of lower limb prostheses. Procedia Eng. 2014, 96, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Condie, E.; Scott, H.; Treweek, S. Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: A review of the literature 1995 to 2005. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2006, 18, P13–P45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gard, S.A. Use of quantitative gait analysis for the evaluation of prosthetic walking performance. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2006, 18, P93–P104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Balk, E.M.; Gazula, A.; Markozannes, G.; Kimmel, H.J.; Saldanha, I.J.; Resnik, L.J.; Trikalinos, T.A. Lower Limb Prostheses: Measurement Instruments, Comparison of Component Effects by Subgroups, and Long-Term Outcomes [Internet]. 2018. Available online: https://europepmc.org/article/NBK/nbk531523: (accessed on 31 October 2022).
  13. Ghillebert, J.; De Bock, S.; Flynn, L.; Geeroms, J.; Tassignon, B.; Roelands, B.; Lefeber, D.; Vanderborght, B.; Meeusen, R.; De Pauw, K. Guidelines and recommendations to investigate the efficacy of a lower-limb prosthetic device: A systematic review. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 2019, 1, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Moore, R. Patient evaluation of a novel prosthetic foot with hydraulic ankle aimed at persons with amputation with lower activity levels. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2017, 29, 44–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vu, H.T.T.; Dong, D.; Cao, H.-L.; Verstraten, T.; Lefeber, D.; Vanderborght, B.; Geeroms, J. A review of gait phase detection algorithms for lower limb prostheses. Sensors 2020, 20, 3972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Samuelsson, K.A.; Töytäri, O.; Salminen, A.-L.; Brandt, Å. Effects of lower limb prosthesis on activity, participation, and quality of life: A systematic review. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2012, 36, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Safari, R. Lower limb prosthetic interfaces: Clinical and technological advancement and potential future direction. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2020, 44, 384–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Voloshina, A.; Collins, S. A Review of Design and Control Approaches in Lower-Limb Prosthetic Devices. Biology 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Andrysek, J. Lower-limb prosthetic technologies in the developing world: A review of literature from 1994–2010. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2010, 34, 378–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xu, D.; Wang, Y.-L.; Wang, K.-T.; Wang, Y.; Dong, X.-R.; Tang, J.; Cui, Y.-L. A scientometrics analysis and visualization of depressive disorder. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2021, 19, 766–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, G.; Jin, B.; Xian, X.; Yang, H.; Zhao, H.; Du, S.; Makuuchi, M.; Pawlik, T.M.; Mao, Y. Evolutions in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma over last 4 decades: An analysis from the 100 most influential articles in the field. Liver Cancer 2021, 10, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stout, N.L.; Alfano, C.M.; Belter, C.W.; Nitkin, R.; Cernich, A.; Lohmann Siegel, K.; Chan, L. A bibliometric analysis of the landscape of cancer rehabilitation research (1992–2016). JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2018, 110, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yan, W.; Zheng, K.; Weng, L.; Chen, C.; Kiartivich, S.; Jiang, X.; Su, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Bibliometric evaluation of 2000–2019 publications on functional near-infrared spectroscopy. NeuroImage 2020, 220, 117121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cruz Gonzalez, P.; Fong, K.N.; Chung, R.C.; Ting, K.-H.; Law, L.L.; Brown, T. Can transcranial direct-current stimulation alone or combined with cognitive training be used as a clinical intervention to improve cognitive functioning in persons with mild cognitive impairment and dementia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Toh, S.F.M.; Fong, K.N.; Gonzalez, P.C.; Tang, Y.M. Application of home-based wearable technologies in physical rehabilitation for stroke: A scoping review. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2023, 31, 1614–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Synnestvedt, M.B.; Chen, C.; Holmes, J.H. CiteSpace II: Visualization and knowledge discovery in bibliographic databases. In Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Washington, DC, USA, 22–26 October 2005; p. 724. [Google Scholar]
  27. Liang, Y.-D.; Li, Y.; Zhao, J.; Wang, X.-Y.; Zhu, H.-Z.; Chen, X.-H. Study of acupuncture for low back pain in recent 20 years: A bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace. J. Pain Res. 2017, 10, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sun, W.; Song, J.; Dong, X.; Kang, X.; He, B.; Zhao, W.; Li, Z.; Feng, Z.; Chen, X. Bibliometric and visual analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation in the web of science database from 2000 to 2022 via CiteSpace. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 1049572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Özgür, A.; Vu, T.; Erkan, G.; Radev, D.R. Identifying gene-disease associations using centrality on a literature mined gene-interaction network. Bioinformatics 2008, 24, i277–i285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Geiss, L.S.; Li, Y.; Hora, I.; Albright, A.; Rolka, D.; Gregg, E.W. Resurgence of diabetes-related nontraumatic lower-extremity amputation in the young and middle-aged adult US population. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wu, H.; Yang, A.; Lau, E.S.; Ma, R.C.; Kong, A.P.; Chow, E.; So, W.-Y.; Chan, J.C.; Luk, A.O. Secular trends in rates of hospitalisation for lower extremity amputation and 1 year mortality in people with diabetes in Hong Kong, 2001–2016: A retrospective cohort study. Diabetologia 2020, 63, 2689–2698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lazzarini, P.A.; Gurr, J.M.; Rogers, J.R.; Schox, A.; Bergin, S.M. Diabetes foot disease: The Cinderella of Australian diabetes management? J. Foot Ankle Res. 2012, 5, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wong, M.W. Lower extremity amputation in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med. J. 2005, 11, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
  34. Riandini, T.; Pang, D.; Toh, M.P.; Tan, C.S.; Choong, A.M.; Lo, Z.J.; Chandrasekar, S.; Tai, E.S.; Tan, K.B.; Venkataraman, K. National rates of lower extremity amputation in people with and without diabetes in a multi-ethnic Asian population: A ten year study in Singapore. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2022, 63, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kannan, K. Evaluation of Nerve Conduction Abnormalities and Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; Madras Medical College: Chennai, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Shi, Q.Q.; Li, P.L.; Yick, K.-L.; Li, N.-W.; Jiao, J. Effects of contoured insoles with different materials on plantar pressure offloading in diabetic elderly during gait. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 15395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Shi, Q.-Q.; Li, P.-L.; Yick, K.-L.; Jiao, J.; Liu, Q.-L. Influence of Contoured Insoles with Different Materials on Kinematics and Kinetics Changes in Diabetic Elderly during Gait. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Desveaux, L.; Goldstein, R.S.; Mathur, S.; Hassan, A.; Devlin, M.; Pauley, T.; Brooks, D. Physical activity in adults with diabetes following prosthetic rehabilitation. Can. J. Diabetes 2016, 40, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Singh, R.K.; Prasad, G. Long-term mortality after lower-limb amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2016, 40, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Movassaghi, K.; Wakefield, C.; Bohl, D.D.; Lee, S.; Lin, J.; Holmes Jr, G.B.; Hamid, K.S. Septic arthritis of the native ankle. JBJS Rev. 2019, 7, e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Simoni, G.; Maccauro, G.; Fenga, D.; De Santis, V.; Orani, R.; Centofanti, F.; Rosa, M. Arthrodesis of the ankle joint in septic osteoarthritis: Six years long term outcomes in authors’ personal experience. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2019, 23, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, S.; Li, B.; Yu, X.; Wu, H.; Liu, L. Is Ankle Arthrodesis With an Ilizarov External Fixator an Effective Treatment for Septic Ankle Arthritis? A Study With a Minimum of 6 Years of Follow-up. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.® 2022, 481, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Atluri, G.; Karpatne, A.; Kumar, V. Spatio-temporal data mining: A survey of problems and methods. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2018, 51, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Abouhossein, A.; Awad, M.I.; Maqbool, H.F.; Crisp, C.; Stewart, T.D.; Messenger, N.; Richardson, R.C.; Dehghani-Sanij, A.A.; Bradley, D. Foot trajectories and loading rates in a transfemoral amputee for six different commercial prosthetic knees: An indication of adaptability. Med. Eng. Phys. 2019, 68, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Agrawal, V.; Gailey, R.S.; Gaunaurd, I.A.; O’Toole, C.; Finnieston, A.; Tolchin, R. Comparison of four different categories of prosthetic feet during ramp ambulation in unilateral transtibial amputees. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2015, 39, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Aldridge, J.M.; Sturdy, J.T.; Wilken, J.M. Stair ascent kinematics and kinetics with a powered lower leg system following transtibial amputation. Gait Posture 2012, 36, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Andrysek, J.; Wright, F.V.; Rotter, K.; Garcia, D.; Valdebenito, R.; Mitchell, C.A.; Rozbaczylo, C.; Cubillos, R. Long-term clinical evaluation of the automatic stance-phase lock-controlled prosthetic knee joint in young adults with unilateral above-knee amputation. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2017, 12, 378–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kim, J.; Wensman, J.; Colabianchi, N.; Gates, D.H. The influence of powered prostheses on user perspectives, metabolics, and activity: A randomized crossover trial. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2021, 18, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bai, X.; Ewins, D.; Crocombe, A.D.; Xu, W. Kinematic and biomimetic assessment of a hydraulic ankle/foot in level ground and camber walking. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bai, X.; Ewins, D.; Crocombe, A.D.; Xu, W. A biomechanical assessment of hydraulic ankle-foot devices with and without micro-processor control during slope ambulation in trans-femoral amputees. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barr, J.B.; Wutzke, C.J.; Threlkeld, A.J. Longitudinal gait analysis of a person with a transfemoral amputation using three different prosthetic knee/foot pairs. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2012, 28, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bellmann, M.; Schmalz, T.; Ludwigs, E.; Blumentritt, S. Immediate effects of a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint: A comparative biomechanical evaluation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 93, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Burnfield, J.M.; Eberly, V.J.; Gronely, J.K.; Perry, J.; Yule, W.J.; Mulroy, S.J. Impact of stance phase microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis on ramp negotiation and community walking function in K2 level transfemoral amputees. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2012, 36, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Creylman, V.; Knippels, I.; Janssen, P.; Biesbrouck, E.; Lechler, K.; Peeraer, L. Assessment of transfemoral amputees using a passive microprocessor-controlled knee versus an active powered microprocessor-controlled knee for level walking. BioMed. Eng. OnLine 2016, 15, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. De Asha, A.R.; Munjal, R.; Kulkarni, J.; Buckley, J.G. Impact on the biomechanics of overground gait of using an ‘Echelon’hydraulic ankle–foot device in unilateral trans-tibial and trans-femoral amputees. Clin. Biomech. 2014, 29, 728–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Eberly, V.J.; Mulroy, S.J.; Gronley, J.K.; Perry, J.; Yule, W.J.; Burnfield, J.M. Impact of a stance phase microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis on level walking in lower functioning individuals with a transfemoral amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2014, 38, 447–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Russell Esposito, E.; Schmidtbauer, K.A.; Wilken, J.M. Experimental comparisons of passive and powered ankle-foot orthoses in individuals with limb reconstruction. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ferris, A.E.; Aldridge, J.M.; Rábago, C.A.; Wilken, J.M. Evaluation of a powered ankle-foot prosthetic system during walking. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 93, 1911–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fradet, L.; Alimusaj, M.; Braatz, F.; Wolf, S.I. Biomechanical analysis of ramp ambulation of transtibial amputees with an adaptive ankle foot system. Gait Posture 2010, 32, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gailey, R.S.; Gaunaurd, I.; Agrawal, V.; Finnieston, A.; Tolchin, R. Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2012, 49, 597–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hasenoehrl, T.; Schmalz, T.; Windhager, R.; Domayer, S.; Dana, S.; Ambrozy, C.; Palma, S.; Crevenna, R. Safety and function of a prototype microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis for low active transfemoral amputees switching from a mechanic knee prosthesis: A pilot study. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2018, 13, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Highsmith, M.J.; Kahle, J.T.; Kaluf, B.; Miro, R.M.; Mengelkoch, L.J.; Klenow, T.D. Psychometric evaluation of the hill assessment index (HAI) and stair assessment index (SAI) in high-functioning transfemoral amputees. Technol. Innov. 2016, 18, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Houdijk, H.; Wezenberg, D.; Hak, L.; Cutti, A.G. Energy storing and return prosthetic feet improve step length symmetry while preserving margins of stability in persons with transtibial amputation. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ingraham, K.A.; Fey, N.P.; Simon, A.M.; Hargrove, L.J. Assessing the relative contributions of active ankle and knee assistance to the walking mechanics of transfemoral amputees using a powered prosthesis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Johnson, L.; De Asha, A.R.; Munjal, R.; Kulkarni, J.; Buckley, J.G. Toe Clearance When Walking in People with Unilateral Transtibial Amputation: Effects of Passive Hydraulic Ankle. J. Rehabil. Res. 2014, 51, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kaufman, K.R.; Frittoli, S.; Frigo, C.A. Gait asymmetry of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Clin. Biomech. 2012, 27, 460–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Klodd, E.; Hansen, A.; Fatone, S.; Edwards, M. Effects of prosthetic foot forefoot flexibility on oxygen cost and subjective preference rankings of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2010, 47, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Koehler-McNicholas, S.R.; Savvas Slater, B.C.; Koester, K.; Nickel, E.A.; Ferguson, J.E.; Hansen, A.H. Bimodal ankle-foot prosthesis for enhanced standing stability. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lura, D.J.; Wernke, M.M.; Carey, S.L.; Kahle, J.T.; Miro, R.M.; Highsmith, M.J. Differences in knee flexion between the Genium and C-Leg microprocessor knees while walking on level ground and ramps. Clin. Biomech. 2015, 30, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Major, M.; Twiste, M.; Kenney, L.; Howard, D. The effects of prosthetic ankle stiffness on stability of gait in people with trans-tibial amputation. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2016, 53, 839–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McGrath, M.; Laszczak, P.; Zahedi, S.; Moser, D. The influence of a microprocessor-controlled hydraulic ankle on the kinetic symmetry of trans-tibial amputees during ramp walking: A case series. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 2018, 5, 2055668318790650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Martinez-Villalpando, E.C.; Mooney, L.; Elliott, G.; Herr, H. Antagonistic active knee prosthesis. A metabolic cost of walking comparison with a variable-damping prosthetic knee. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Boston, MA, USA, 30 August–3 September 2011; pp. 8519–8522. [Google Scholar]
  73. McDonald, C.L.; Kramer, P.A.; Morgan, S.J.; Halsne, E.G.; Cheever, S.M.; Hafner, B.J. Energy expenditure in people with transtibial amputation walking with crossover and energy storing prosthetic feet: A randomized within-subject study. Gait Posture 2018, 62, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mengelkoch, L.J.; Kahle, J.T.; Highsmith, M.J. Energy costs and performance of transfemoral amputees and non-amputees during walking and running: A pilot study. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2017, 41, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Morgan, S.J.; Hafner, B.J.; Kelly, V.E. The effects of a concurrent task on walking in persons with transfemoral amputation compared to persons without limb loss. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2016, 40, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mulder, I.A.; Holtslag, H.R.; Beersma, L.F.; Koopman, B.F. Keep moving forward: A new energy returning prosthetic device with low installation height after Syme or Pirogoff amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2014, 38, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Nickel, E. Passive prosthetic ankle-foot mechanism for automatic adaptation to sloped surfaces. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2014, 51, 803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Pew, C.; Klute, G.K. Pilot testing of a variable stiffness transverse plane adapter for lower limb amputees. Gait Posture 2017, 51, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pickle, N.T.; Wilken, J.M.; Whitehead, J.M.A.; Silverman, A.K. Whole-body angular momentum during sloped walking using passive and powered lower-limb prostheses. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 3397–3406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Prinsen, E.C.; Nederhand, M.J.; Sveinsdóttir, H.; Prins, M.; Van der Meer, F.; Koopman, H.F.; Rietman, J.S. The influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee across varying walking speeds: A randomized cross-over trial. Gait Posture 2017, 51, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Quesada, R.E.; Caputo, J.M.; Collins, S.H. Increasing ankle push-off work with a powered prosthesis does not necessarily reduce metabolic rate for transtibial amputees. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 3452–3459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rosenblatt, N.J.; Bauer, A.; Rotter, D.; Grabiner, M.D. Active dorsiflexing prostheses may reduce trip-related fall risk in people with transtibial amputation. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2014, 51, 1229–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rock, C.G.; Wurdeman, S.R.; Stergiou, N.; Takahashi, K.Z. Stride-to-stride fluctuations in transtibial amputees are not affected by changes in push-off mechanics from using different prostheses. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Roerdink, M.; Cutti, A.G.; Summa, A.; Monari, D.; Veronesi, D.; van Ooijen, M.W.; Beek, P.J. Gaitography applied to prosthetic walking. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2014, 52, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schmalz, T.; Altenburg, B.; Ernst, M.; Bellmann, M.; Rosenbaum, D. Lower limb amputee gait characteristics on a specifically designed test ramp: Preliminary results of a biomechanical comparison of two prosthetic foot concepts. Gait Posture 2019, 68, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Segal, A.D.; Zelik, K.E.; Klute, G.K.; Morgenroth, D.C.; Hahn, M.E.; Orendurff, M.S.; Adamczyk, P.G.; Collins, S.H.; Kuo, A.D.; Czerniecki, J.M. The effects of a controlled energy storage and return prototype prosthetic foot on transtibial amputee ambulation. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2012, 31, 918–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Shepherd, M.K.; Rouse, E.J. The VSPA foot: A quasi-passive ankle-foot prosthesis with continuously variable stiffness. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017, 25, 2375–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Shultz, A.H.; Goldfarb, M. A unified controller for walking on even and uneven terrain with a powered ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 788–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Takahashi, K.Z.; Horne, J.R.; Stanhope, S.J. Comparison of mechanical energy profiles of passive and active below-knee prostheses: A case study. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2015, 39, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Thiele, J.; Westebbe, B.; Bellmann, M.; Kraft, M. Designs and performance of microprocessor-controlled knee joints. Biomed. Tech./Biomed. Eng. 2014, 59, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Thiele, J.; Schöllig, C.; Bellmann, M.; Kraft, M. Designs and performance of three new microprocessor-controlled knee joints. Biomed. Eng./Biomed. Tech. 2019, 64, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wezenberg, D.; Cutti, A.G.; Bruno, A.; Houdijk, H. Differentiation between solid-ankle cushioned heel and energy storage and return prosthetic foot based on step-to-step transition cost. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2014, 51, 1579–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wolf, E.J.; Everding, V.Q.; Linberg, A.L.; Schnall, B.L.; Czerniecki, J.M.; Gambel, J.M. Assessment of transfemoral amputees using C-Leg and Power Knee for ascending and descending inclines and steps. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2012, 49, 831–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Aldridge Whitehead, J.M.; Wolf, E.J.; Scoville, C.R.; Wilken, J.M. Does a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee affect stair ascent strategies in persons with transfemoral amputation? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.® 2014, 472, 3093–3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Knaepen, K.; Marusic, U.; Crea, S.; Guerrero, C.D.R.; Vitiello, N.; Pattyn, N.; Mairesse, O.; Lefeber, D.; Meeusen, R. Psychophysiological response to cognitive workload during symmetrical, asymmetrical and dual-task walking. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2015, 40, 248–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mâaref, K.; Martinet, N.; Grumillier, C.; Ghannouchi, S.; André, J.M.; Paysant, J. Kinematics in the terminal swing phase of unilateral transfemoral amputees: Microprocessor-controlled versus swing-phase control prosthetic knees. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2010, 91, 919–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Portnoy, S.; Kristal, A.; Gefen, A.; Siev-Ner, I. Outdoor dynamic subject-specific evaluation of internal stresses in the residual limb: Hydraulic energy-stored prosthetic foot compared to conventional energy-stored prosthetic feet. Gait Posture 2012, 35, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Raschke, S.U.; Orendurff, M.S.; Mattie, J.L.; Kenyon, D.E.; Jones, O.Y.; Moe, D.; Winder, L.; Wong, A.S.; Moreno-Hernández, A.; Highsmith, M.J. Biomechanical characteristics, patient preference and activity level with different prosthetic feet: A randomized double blind trial with laboratory and community testing. J. Biomech. 2015, 48, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Brandt, A.; Wen, Y.; Liu, M.; Stallings, J.; Huang, H.H. Interactions between transfemoral amputees and a powered knee prosthesis during load carriage. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hood, S.A.; Lenzi, T. Preliminary analysis of positive knee energy injection in a transfemoral amputee walking with a powered prosthesis. In Proceedings of the 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 July 2018; pp. 1821–1824. [Google Scholar]
  101. Ray, S.F.; Wurdeman, S.R.; Takahashi, K.Z. Prosthetic energy return during walking increases after 3 weeks of adaptation to a new device. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Bell, E.M.; Pruziner, A.L.; Wilken, J.M.; Wolf, E.J. Performance of conventional and X2® prosthetic knees during slope descent. Clin. Biomech. 2016, 33, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Gjovaag, T.; Starholm, I.M.; Mirtaheri, P.; Hegge, F.W.; Skjetne, K. Assessment of aerobic capacity and walking economy of unilateral transfemoral amputees. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2014, 38, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Grimmer, M.; Holgate, M.; Ward, J.; Boehler, A.; Seyfarth, A. Feasibility study of transtibial amputee walking using a powered prosthetic foot. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), London, UK, 17–20 July 2017; pp. 1118–1123. [Google Scholar]
  105. Howard, C.L.; Perry, B.; Chow, J.W.; Wallace, C.; Stokic, D.S. Increased alertness, better than posture prioritization, explains dual-task performance in prosthesis users and controls under increasing postural and cognitive challenge. Exp. Brain Res. 2017, 235, 3527–3539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Williams, M.R.; D’Andrea, S.; Herr, H.M. Impact on gait biomechanics of using an active variable impedance prosthetic knee. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2016, 13, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Prinsen, E.C.; Nederhand, M.J.; Koopman, B.F.; Rietman, J.S. The influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee on planned gait termination. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), London, UK, 17–20 July 2017; pp. 1254–1259. [Google Scholar]
  108. Bellmann, M.; Köhler, T.M.; Schmalz, T. Comparative biomechanical evaluation of two technologically different microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints in safety-relevant daily-life situations. Biomed. Eng./Biomed. Tech. 2019, 64, 407–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Feng, Y.; Wang, Q. Combining push-off power and nonlinear damping behaviors for a lightweight motor-driven transtibial prosthesis. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2017, 22, 2512–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kendell, C.; Lemaire, E.D.; Kofman, J.; Dudek, N. Gait adaptations of transfemoral prosthesis users across multiple walking tasks. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2016, 40, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Mishra, P.; Singh, S.; Ranjan, V.; Singh, S.; Vidyarthi, A. Performance evaluation of Jaipur knee joint through kinematics and kinetics gait symmetry with unilateral transfemoral indian amputees. J. Med. Syst. 2019, 43, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Struchkov, V.; Buckley, J.G. Biomechanics of ramp descent in unilateral trans-tibial amputees: Comparison of a microprocessor controlled foot with conventional ankle–foot mechanisms. Clin. Biomech. 2016, 32, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Svoboda, Z.; Janura, M.; Cabell, L.; Elfmark, M. Variability of kinetic variables during gait in unilateral transtibial amputees. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2012, 36, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Simon, A.M.; Fey, N.P.; Finucane, S.B.; Lipschutz, R.D.; Hargrove, L.J. Strategies to reduce the configuration time for a powered knee and ankle prosthesis across multiple ambulation modes. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Seattle, WA, USA, 24–26 June 2013; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  115. Simon, A.M.; Ingraham, K.A.; Fey, N.P.; Finucane, S.B.; Lipschutz, R.D.; Young, A.J.; Hargrove, L.J. Configuring a powered knee and ankle prosthesis for transfemoral amputees within five specific ambulation modes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Adamczyk, P.G.; Roland, M.; Hahn, M.E. Sensitivity of biomechanical outcomes to independent variations of hindfoot and forefoot stiffness in foot prostheses. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017, 54, 154–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Culver, S.; Bartlett, H.; Shultz, A.; Goldfarb, M. A stair ascent and descent controller for a powered ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 993–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Fey, N.P.; Klute, G.K.; Neptune, R.R. The influence of energy storage and return foot stiffness on walking mechanics and muscle activity in below-knee amputees. Clin. Biomech. 2011, 26, 1025–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hansen, A.; Nickel, E.; Medvec, J.; Brielmaier, S.; Pike, A.; Weber, M. Effects of a flat prosthetic foot rocker section on balance and mobility. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2014, 51, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Highsmith, M.J.; Kahle, J.T.; Carey, S.L.; Lura, D.J.; Dubey, R.V.; Csavina, K.R.; Quillen, W.S. Kinetic asymmetry in transfemoral amputees while performing sit to stand and stand to sit movements. Gait Posture 2011, 34, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Huang, S.; Wensman, J.P.; Ferris, D.P. Locomotor adaptation by transtibial amputees walking with an experimental powered prosthesis under continuous myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2015, 24, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Kark, L.; Simmons, A. Patient satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: The role of gait deviation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2011, 35, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Ledoux, E.D.; Goldfarb, M. Control and evaluation of a powered transfemoral prosthesis for stair ascent. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017, 25, 917–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Lura, D.J.; Wernke, M.W.; Carey, S.L.; Kahle, J.T.; Miro, R.M.; Highsmith, M.J. Crossover study of amputee stair ascent and descent biomechanics using Genium and C-Leg prostheses with comparison to non-amputee control. Gait Posture 2017, 58, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wu, M.; Haque, M.R.; Shen, X. Obtaining natural sit-to-stand motion with a biomimetic controller for powered knee prostheses. J. Healthc. Eng. 2017, 2017, 3850351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pickle, N.T.; Wilken, J.M.; Aldridge, J.M.; Neptune, R.R.; Silverman, A.K. Whole-body angular momentum during stair walking using passive and powered lower-limb prostheses. J. Biomech. 2014, 47, 3380–3389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Turcot, K.; Sagawa Jr, Y.; Lacraz, A.; Lenoir, J.; Assal, M.; Armand, S. Comparison of the International Committee of the Red Cross foot with the solid ankle cushion heel foot during gait: A randomized double-blind study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2013, 94, 1490–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ventura, J.D.; Klute, G.K.; Neptune, R.R. The effects of prosthetic ankle dorsiflexion and energy return on below-knee amputee leg loading. Clin. Biomech. 2011, 26, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zelik, K.E.; Collins, S.H.; Adamczyk, P.G.; Segal, A.D.; Klute, G.K.; Morgenroth, D.C.; Hahn, M.E.; Orendurff, M.S.; Czerniecki, J.M.; Kuo, A.D. Systematic variation of prosthetic foot spring affects center-of-mass mechanics and metabolic cost during walking. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2011, 19, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Shultz, A.H.; Lawson, B.E.; Goldfarb, M. Variable cadence walking and ground adaptive standing with a powered ankle prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2015, 24, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Montgomery, J.R.; Grabowski, A.M. Use of a powered ankle–foot prosthesis reduces the metabolic cost of uphill walking and improves leg work symmetry in people with transtibial amputations. J. R. Soc. Interface 2018, 15, 20180442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Grabowski, A.M.; D’Andrea, S. Effects of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis on kinetic loading of the unaffected leg during level-ground walking. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2013, 10, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Inoue, K.; Hobara, H.; Wada, T. Effects of inertial properties of transfemoral prosthesis on leg swing motion during stair ascent. In Proceedings of the 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Osaka, Japan, 3–7 July 2013; pp. 1591–1594. [Google Scholar]
  134. Delussu, A.S.; Brunelli, S.; Paradisi, F.; Iosa, M.; Pellegrini, R.; Zenardi, D.; Traballesi, M. Assessment of the effects of carbon fiber and bionic foot during overground and treadmill walking in transtibial amputees. Gait Posture 2013, 38, 876–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Srisuwan, B.; Klute, G.K. Locomotor activities of individuals with lower-limb amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2021, 45, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Czerniecki, J.M.; Morgenroth, D.C. Metabolic energy expenditure of ambulation in lower extremity amputees: What have we learned and what are the next steps? Disabil. Rehabil. 2017, 39, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Sadeghi, H.; Allard, P.; Duhaime, M. Muscle power compensatory mechanisms in below-knee amputee gait. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2001, 80, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ibarra Aguila, S.; Sánchez, G.J.; Sauvain, E.E.; Alemon, B.; Fuentes-Aguilar, R.Q.; Huegel, J.C. Interface pressure system to compare the functional performance of prosthetic sockets during the gait in people with trans-tibial amputation. Sensors 2020, 20, 7043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Starholm, I.-M.; Gjovaag, T.; Mengshoel, A.M. Energy expenditure of transfemoral amputees walking on a horizontal and tilted treadmill simulating different outdoor walking conditions. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2010, 34, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. De Pauw, K.; Cherelle, P.; Roelands, B.; Lefeber, D.; Meeusen, R. The efficacy of the Ankle Mimicking Prosthetic Foot prototype 4.0 during walking: Physiological determinants. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2018, 42, 504–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Meier, M.R.; Hansen, A.H.; Gard, S.A.; McFadyen, A.K. Obstacle course: Users’ maneuverability and movement efficiency when using Otto Bock C-Leg, Otto Bock 3R60, and CaTech SNS prosthetic knee joints. J. Rehabil. Res. Res. Dev. 2012, 49, 583–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Lacraz, A.; Armand, S.; Turcot, K.; Carmona, G.; Stern, R.; Borens, O.; Assal, M. Comparison of the Otto Bock solid ankle cushion heel foot with wooden keel to the low-cost CR-Equipements™ solid ankle cushion heel foot with polypropylene keel: A randomized prospective double-blind crossover study assessing patient satisfaction and energy expenditure. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2017, 41, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  143. Neptune, R.R.; Kautz, S.A.; Zajac, F.E. Contributions of the individual ankle plantar flexors to support, forward progression and swing initiation during walking. J. Biomech. 2001, 34, 1387–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Zajac, F.E. Understanding muscle coordination of the human leg with dynamical simulations. J. Biomech. 2002, 35, 1011–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hubley-Kozey, C.; Deluzio, K.; Dunbar, M. Muscle co-activation patterns during walking in those with severe knee osteoarthritis. Clin. Biomech. 2008, 23, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Wong, C.K.; Gibbs, W.; Chen, E.S. Use of the Houghton scale to classify community and household walking ability in people with lower-limb amputation: Criterion-related validity. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016, 97, 1130–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Devlin, M.; Pauley, T.; Head, K.; Garfinkel, S. Houghton scale of prosthetic use in people with lower-extremity amputations: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004, 85, 1339–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Franchignoni, F.; Orlandini, D.; Ferriero, G.; Moscato, T.A. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the locomotor capabilities index in adults with lower-limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004, 85, 743–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Salavati, M.; Mazaheri, M.; Khosrozadeh, F.; Mousavi, S.M.E.; Negahban, H.; Shojaei, H. The Persian version of locomotor capabilities index: Translation, reliability and validity in individuals with lower limb amputation. Qual. Life Res. 2011, 20, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ranker, A.; Gutenbrunner, C.; Eckhardt, I.; Giordano, A.; Burger, H.; Franchignoni, F. Rasch validation and comparison of the German versions of the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in lower-limb prosthesis users. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2021, 44, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Franchignoni, F.; Giordano, A.; Ferriero, G.; Orlandini, D.; Amoresano, A.; Perucca, L. Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. J. Rehabil. Med. 2007, 39, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Kahle, J.T.; Highsmith, M.J.; Hubbard, S.L. Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2008, 45, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Coleman, K.L.; Boone, D.A.; Laing, L.S.; Mathews, D.E.; Smith, D.G. Quantification of prosthetic outcomes: Elastomeric gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspension. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2004, 41, 591–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Baars, E.C.; Schrier, E.; Dijkstra, P.U.; Geertzen, J.H. Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees: A systematic review of associated factors and questionnaires. Medicine 2018, 97, e12296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Berke, G.M.; CP, F.; L-CPO, J.H.; Nguyen, V. Comparison of satisfaction with current prosthetic care in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts with major traumatic limb loss. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2010, 47, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Dillingham, T.R.; Pezzin, L.E.; MacKenzie, E.J.; Burgess, A.R. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: A long-term outcome study. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2001, 80, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Miller, M.J.; Morris, M.A.; Magnusson, D.M.; Putnam, K.; Cook, P.F.; Schenkman, M.L.; Christiansen, C.L. Psychosocial factors influence physical activity after dysvascular amputation: A convergent mixed-methods study. PMR 2021, 13, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Bunce, D.J.; Breakey, J.W. The impact of C-Leg® on the physical and psychological adjustment to transfemoral amputation. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2007, 19, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Buis, A.W.; Dumbleton, T.; Murray, K.D.; McHugh, B.F.; McKay, G.; Sexton, S. Measuring the daily stepping activity of people with transtibial amputation using the ActivPAL™ activity monitor. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2014, 26, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Beisheim, E.H.; Arch, E.S.; Horne, J.R.; Sions, J.M. Performance-based outcome measures are associated with cadence variability during community ambulation among individuals with a transtibial amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2020, 44, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Fleming, A.; Stafford, N.; Huang, S.; Hu, X.; Ferris, D.P.; Huang, H.H. Myoelectric control of robotic lower limb prostheses: A review of electromyography interfaces, control paradigms, challenges and future directions. J. Neural Eng. 2021, 18, 041004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Brown, B.J.; Iorio, M.L.; Klement, M.; Conti Mica, M.R.; El-Amraoui, A.; O’Halloran, P.; Attinger, C.E. Outcomes after 294 transtibial amputations with the posterior myocutaneous flap. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2014, 13, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Huang, S.; Huang, H. Voluntary control of residual antagonistic muscles in transtibial amputees: Feedforward ballistic contractions and implications for direct neural control of powered lower limb prostheses. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 894–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ha, K.H.; Varol, H.A.; Goldfarb, M. Volitional control of a prosthetic knee using surface electromyography. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2010, 58, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Huang, H.; Zhang, F.; Hargrove, L.J.; Dou, Z.; Rogers, D.R.; Englehart, K.B. Continuous locomotion-mode identification for prosthetic legs based on neuromuscular–mechanical fusion. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2011, 58, 2867–2875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Miller, J.D.; Beazer, M.S.; Hahn, M.E. Myoelectric walking mode classification for transtibial amputees. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2013, 60, 2745–2750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Kim, J.-H.; Oh, J.-H. Development of an above knee prosthesis using MR damper and leg simulator. In Proceedings of the Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 01CH37164), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 21–26 May 2001; pp. 3686–3691. [Google Scholar]
  168. Underwood, H.A.; Tokuno, C.D.; Eng, J.J. A comparison of two prosthetic feet on the multi-joint and multi-plane kinetic gait compensations in individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation. Clin. Biomech. 2004, 19, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Berry, D. Microprocessor prosthetic knees. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. 2006, 17, 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Xu, L.; Wang, D.-H.; Fu, Q.; Yuan, G.; Hu, L.-Z. A novel four-bar linkage prosthetic knee based on magnetorheological effect: Principle, structure, simulation and control. Smart Mater. Struct. 2016, 25, 115007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Rochlitz, B.; Pammer, D. Design and analysis of 3D printable foot prosthesis. Period. Polytech. Mech. Eng. 2017, 61, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bioengineering 10 01138 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of scientometric analysis. SCI-E, Science citation index expanded; SSCI, Social sciences citation index. * indicates one and more root words, referring to terms related to a prosthesis or prosthetic.
Figure 1. Flow chart of scientometric analysis. SCI-E, Science citation index expanded; SSCI, Social sciences citation index. * indicates one and more root words, referring to terms related to a prosthesis or prosthetic.
Bioengineering 10 01138 g001
Bioengineering 10 01138 g002
Figure 2. Related publications between 2000 and 2022.
Figure 2. Related publications between 2000 and 2022.
Bioengineering 10 01138 g002
Bioengineering 10 01138 g003
Figure 3. Top ten countries with the highest number of collaborative prosthetic foot publications. PRC denotes the People’s Republic of China.
Figure 3. Top ten countries with the highest number of collaborative prosthetic foot publications. PRC denotes the People’s Republic of China.
Bioengineering 10 01138 g003
Bioengineering 10 01138 g004
Figure 4. Keyword co-occurrence network. The colors indicate the keywords in different research fields; the size of the circle represents the importance of the keyword in this field; the link lines represent the connections among keywords.
Figure 4. Keyword co-occurrence network. The colors indicate the keywords in different research fields; the size of the circle represents the importance of the keyword in this field; the link lines represent the connections among keywords.
Bioengineering 10 01138 g004
Bioengineering 10 01138 g005
Figure 5. Results of manual analysis of keywords: (A) population, (B) function, (C) psychology, and (D) technology.
Figure 5. Results of manual analysis of keywords: (A) population, (B) function, (C) psychology, and (D) technology.
Bioengineering 10 01138 g005
Table 1. Statistics on top 10 countries with highest number of collaborative publications.
Table 1. Statistics on top 10 countries with highest number of collaborative publications.
Number of PublicationsCentralityCountry
7740.51USA
1500.22UNITED KINGDOM
1120.06GERMANY
1040.25ITALY
1040.05PRC
790.15CANADA
740.07THE NETHERLANDS
730.10FRANCE
690.05SWITZERLAND
590.01INDIA
PRC denotes the People’s Republic of China; USA denotes the United States of America.
Table 2. Top 10 institutions with the largest number of published articles on prosthetic feet.
Table 2. Top 10 institutions with the largest number of published articles on prosthetic feet.
Number of PublicationsCentralityName of Institution
840.08Northwestern University
600.05University of Washington
310.01University of Michigan
230.03Brooke Army Medical Center
220.01Duke University
200.00The University of Texas at Austin
180.02Massachusetts Institute of Technology
170.03Georgia Institute of Technology
170.00Vrije Universiteit Brussel
160.01Jesse Brown VA Medical Center
Table 3. Top 15 journals with the most publications on prosthetic feet.
Table 3. Top 15 journals with the most publications on prosthetic feet.
RankJournal Number of Publications% of Total Number of PublicationsCountryImpact
Factor (2022)		H-Index
(2022)
1Prosthetics and Orthotics International1518.26UK1.67255
2Foot and Ankle International854.65USA3.569114
3Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery673.67USA1.34570
4Gait and Posture623.39Ireland2.746156
sJournal of Biomechanics58 3.17UK2.789208
6Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development563.06USA1.277108
7IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering532.90USA4.528148
8Clinical Biomechanics482.63UK2.034135
9PLoS ONE402.19USA3.752367
10Foot and Ankle Surgery382.08UK2.840 43
11Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation321.75UK5.208102
12Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume311.70USA6.558274
13Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation301.64USA4.060 197
14Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions of the ASME281.53USA1.899131
15Sensors261.42Switzerland3.847196
Table 4. References with the largest citation bursts between 2000 and 2022.
Table 4. References with the largest citation bursts between 2000 and 2022.
ReferencesYearStrengthBeginEnd2000–2022
GITTER A, 1991, AM J PHYS MED REHAB, V70, P142, https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-199106000-00006199114.0420002012▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
TORBURN L, 1990, JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, V27, P369, https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.1990.10.0369199013.1320002013▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
LEHMANN JF, 1993, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V74, P1225, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(23)00022-9199311.4720002010▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
LEHMANN JF, 1993, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V74, P853, https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9993(93)90013-Z19939.9520002006▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
POWERS CM, 1994, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V75, P825, https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9993(94)90146-519949.8620002012▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
SNYDER RD, 1995, J REHABIL RES DEV, V32, P30919959.6720002010▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
ARYA AP, 1995, PROSTHET ORTHOT INT, V19, P37, https://doi.org/10.3109/0309364950907823019957.5120002008▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
POSTEMA K, 1997, PROSTHET ORTHOT INT, V21, P28, https://doi.org/10.3109/0309364970916452719977.3720002004▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
KADABA MP, 1990, J ORTHOP RES, V8, P383, https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.110008031019908.5020042010▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
ANDERSON T, 2003, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V85A, P1321, https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200307000-0001920037.6620062014▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
HANSEN AH, 2006, PROSTHET ORTHOT INT, V30, P286, https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640600816982200610.6220082012▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
BONNIN M, 2004, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V0, PP6, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000132407.75881.a020048.2720092015▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
SILVERMAN AK, 2008, GAIT POSTURE, V28, P602, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.00520089.5120112012▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
VALDERRABANO V, 2004, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V0, PP47, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000132245.18548.0920048.0320112015▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
HITT J, 2009, IND ROBOT, V36, P441, https://doi.org/10.1108/0143991091098016920099.9220132017▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂
WINTER DA, 1983, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V0, P14719838.0720132018▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂
HSU MJ, 2006, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V87, P123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.07.31020067.9320132018▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂
FEY NP, 2011, CLIN BIOMECH, V26, P1025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.06.00720117.8020162020▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂
QUESADA RE, 2016, J BIOMECH, V49, P3452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.09.01520168.6420172022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃
ADAMCZYK PG, 2017, HUM MOVEMENT SCI, V54, P154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2017.04.00520177.5020182022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃
SHEPHERD MK, 2017, IEEE T NEUR SYS REH, V25, P2375, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2750113201712.9520192022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃
HUANG H, 2011, IEEE T BIO-MED ENG, V58, P2867, https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2011.216167120119.7120192022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃
TUCKER MR, 2015, J NEUROENG REHABIL, V12, P0, https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-12-120158.3220192022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃
GLANZER EM, 2018, IEEE T NEUR SYS REH, V26, P2351, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2018.287796220189.8120202022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃
LAWSON BE, 2014, IEEE ROBOT AUTOM MAG, V21, P70, https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2014.236030320148.4420202022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃
Notes: Red bars indicate a high surge of citations; green bars a small surge of citations.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shi, Q.-Q.; Yick, K.-L.; Wu, J.; Huang, X.; Tse, C.-Y.; Chan, M.-K. A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Prosthetic Foot Research Work: 2000 to 2022. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101138

AMA Style

Shi Q-Q, Yick K-L, Wu J, Huang X, Tse C-Y, Chan M-K. A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Prosthetic Foot Research Work: 2000 to 2022. Bioengineering. 2023; 10(10):1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101138

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shi, Qiu-Qiong, Kit-Lun Yick, Jinlong Wu, Xujia Huang, Chi-Yung Tse, and Mei-Ki Chan. 2023. "A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Prosthetic Foot Research Work: 2000 to 2022" Bioengineering 10, no. 10: 1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101138

APA Style

Shi, Q.-Q., Yick, K.-L., Wu, J., Huang, X., Tse, C.-Y., & Chan, M.-K. (2023). A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Prosthetic Foot Research Work: 2000 to 2022. Bioengineering, 10(10), 1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101138

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop