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
View Full Document
Unlocking...