The 5 Advantages of Energy Storage & Return Feet Like the Lunaris

The transformative impact of energy-storing feet, exemplified by innovations like the Lunaris, reaches beyond mere functionality. These cutting-edge prosthetics not only redefine biomechanics but also have far-reaching effects on metabolic efficiency, overall performance, user satisfaction, and perceived exertion.

In the following exploration, we will delve into the nuanced implications of these terms, shedding light on the comprehensive benefits that propel these prosthetics to the forefront of advancements in the field.

Biomechanics

Prostheses of this type optimize walking by approximating the natural energy storage and return mechanism⁴ of the human ankle. This can promote better symmetry of gait parameters^4,5 and greater stability during movements^5,6, thus improving the users' gait^2,7.

Metabolic cost

These feet reduce the effort of amputees, thereby decreasing the energy expenditure required for walking8,9. Users are likely to feel less fatigue¹⁰, improves their ability to perform daily activities with more ease and endurance.

Perceived Effort Level

The effort perceived by users is significantly reduced with such prostheses¹⁰. By minimizing fatigue1 and perceived burden, they facilitate physical activities and enhance the overall quality of life, allowing users to focus on their goals and passions without being limited by their prostheses.

Performance

Users show significant improvement in various standardized tests, resulting in an increase in walking speed^9,11 as well as an increase in daily physical activity, measured by the average number of steps taken per day⁸.

Satisfaction rate

Prostheses like these report a high satisfaction rate among users10, offering immediate comfort¹² and ease of use, even for new users¹. They restore self-confidence and enable a full and active daily life.

In conclusion, the Lunaris, with its energy storage and return feet, emerges as a trailblazer in the landscape of prosthetic technology. From biomechanical enhancements to improved metabolic efficiency, perceived effort reduction, enhanced performance, and high user satisfaction, it encapsulates a new era in prosthetic innovation. As we witness these advancements, it becomes clear that the Lunaris is not merely a prosthetic device but a key to unlocking newfound possibilities and fostering a life of increased mobility and satisfaction for amputees.

Discover more about our clinical studies in this article

‍

References

¹ _{Lathouwers, E., Ampe, T., Díaz, M. A., Meeusen, R., & De Pauw, K. (2022). Evaluation of an articulated passive ankle–foot prosthesis. Biomedical engineering online, 21(1), 28.}

² _{Lathouwers, E., Baeyens, J. P., Tassignon, B., Gomez, F., Cherelle, P., Meeusen, R., ... & De Pauw, K. (2023). Continuous relative phases of walking with an articulated passive ankle–foot prosthesis in individuals with a unilateral transfemoral and transtibial amputation: an explorative case–control study. Biomedical engineering online, 22(1), 1-27.}

³ _{Lathouwers, E., Díaz, M. A., Maricot, A., Tassignon, B., Cherelle, C., Cherelle, P., ... & De Pauw, K. (2023). Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 20(1), 1-27.}

⁴ _{Graham, L. E., Datta, D., Heller, B., Howitt, J., & Pros, D. (2007). A comparative study of conventional and energy-storing prosthetic feet in high-functioning transfemoral amputees. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 88(6), 801-806.}

⁵ _{Houdijk, H., Wezenberg, D., Hak, L., & Cutti, A. G. (2018). Energy storing and return prosthetic feet improve step length symmetry while preserving margins of stability in persons with transtibial amputation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 15(1), 1-8.}

⁶ _{Underwood, H. A., Tokuno, C. D., & Eng, J. J. (2004). A comparison of two prosthetic feet on the multi-joint and multi-plane kinetic gait compensations in individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation. Clinical Biomechanics, 19(6), 609-616.}

⁷ _{Runciman, P., Cockcroft, J., & Derman, W. (2022). A novel pivot ankle/foot prosthesis reduces sound side loading and risk for osteoarthritis: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 46(3), 258.}

⁸ _{Hsu, M. J., Nielsen, D. H., Lin-Chan, S. J., & Shurr, D. (2006). 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, 87(1), 123-129.}

⁹ _{Graham, L. E., Datta, D., Heller, B., & Howitt, J. (2008). A comparative study of oxygen consumption for conventional and energy-storing prosthetic feet in transfemoral amputees. Clinical rehabilitation, 22(10-11), 896-901.}

¹⁰ _{Delussu, A. S., Paradisi, F., Brunelli, S., Pellegrini, R., Zenardi, D., & Traballesi, M. (2016). Comparison between SACH foot and a new multiaxial prosthetic foot during walking in hypomobile transtibial amputees: physiological responses and functional assessment. European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 52(3), 304-309.}

¹¹ _{Graham, L. E., Datta, D., Heller, B., Howitt, J., & Pros, D. (2007). A comparative study of conventional and energy-storing prosthetic feet in high-functioning transfemoral amputees. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 88(6), 801-806.}

¹² _{Paradisi, F., Delussu, A. S., Brunelli, S., Iosa, M., Pellegrini, R., Zenardi, D., & Traballesi, M. (2015). The conventional non-articulated SACH or a multiaxial prosthetic foot for hypomobile transtibial amputees? A clinical comparison on mobility, balance, and quality of life. The Scientific World Journal, 2015.}