Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 120–135 | Cite as

Real-Time Patient-Specific Finite Element Analysis of Internal Stresses in the Soft Tissues of a Residual Limb: A New Tool for Prosthetic Fitting

  • S. Portnoy
  • G. Yarnitzky
  • Z. Yizhar
  • A. Kristal
  • U. Oppenheim
  • I. Siev-Ner
  • A. GefenEmail author


Fitting of a prosthetic socket is a critical stage in the process of rehabilitation of a trans-tibial amputation (TTA) patient, since a misfit may cause pressure ulcers or a deep tissue injury (DTI: necrosis of the muscle flap under intact skin) in the residual limb. To date, prosthetic fitting typically depends on the subjective skills of the prosthetist, and is not supported by biomedical instrumentation that allows evaluation of the quality of fitting. Specifically, no technology is presently available to provide real-time continuous information on the internal distribution of mechanical stresses in the residual limb during fitting of the prosthesis, or while using it and this severely limits patient evaluations. In this study, a simplified yet clinically oriented patient-specific finite element (FE) model of the residual limb was developed for real-time stress analysis. For this purpose we employed a custom-made FE code that continuously calculates internal stresses in the residual limb, based on boundary conditions acquired in real-time from force sensors, located at the limb-prosthesis interface. Validation of the modeling system was accomplished by means of a synthetic phantom of the residual limb, which allowed simultaneous measurements of interface pressures and internal stresses. Human studies were conducted subsequently in five TTA patients. The dimensions of bones and soft tissues were obtained from X-rays of the residual limb of each patient. An indentation test was performed in order to obtain the effective elastic modulus of the soft tissues of the residual limb. Seven force sensors were placed between the residual limb and the prosthetic liner, and subjects walked on a treadmill during analysis. Generally, stresses under the shinbones were ∼threefold higher than stresses at the soft tissues behind the bones. Usage of a thigh corset decreased the stresses in the residual limb during gait by approximately 80%. Also, the stresses calculated during the trial of a subject who complained about pain and discomfort were the highest, confirming that his socket was not adequately fitted. We conclude that real-time patient-specific FE analysis of internal stresses in deep soft tissues of the residual limb in TTA patients is feasible. This method is promising for improving the fitting of prostheses in the clinical setting and for protecting the residual limb from pressure ulcers and DTI.


Trans-tibial amputation Pressure sore Decubitus ulcer Flap necrosis Deep tissue injury 



The authors appreciate the help of Mr. Eran Linder-Ganz from the Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Laboratory of Tel Aviv University in meshing our real-time FE models, and in advising regarding the use of the Nastran solver. This study was supported by the Israeli Association for the Study of Diabetes (AG, ZY) and by the Ela Kodesz Institute for Medical Engineering and Physical Sciences at Tel Aviv University, Israel (AG, ZY).


  1. 1.
    Ankrom M. A., Bennet R. G., Springle S., Langemo D., Black J. M., Berlowitz D. R., Lyder C. H. (2005) National pressure ulcer advisory panel. Pressure-related deep tissue injury under intact skin and the current pressure ulcer staging systems. Adv. Skin Wound Care 18:35–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bansal C., Scott R., Stewart D., Cockerell C. L. (2005) Decubitus ulcer: A review of the literature. Int. J. Dermatol. 44:805–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beil T. L, Street G. M., Convey S. J. (2002) Interface pressures during ambulation using suction and vacuum-assisted prosthetic sockets. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 39:639–700Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berkley J., Turkiyyah G., Berg D., Ganter M., Weghorst S. (2004) Real-time finite element modeling for surgery simulation: An application to virtual suturing. IEEE T. Vis. Comput. Gr. 10:314–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black J. M. (2005) Moving toward consensus on deep tissue injury and pressure ulcer staging. Adv. Skin Wound Care 18:415–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouten C. V., Oomens C. W., Baaijens F. P., Bader D. L. (2003) The etiology of pressure ulcers: Skin deep or muscle bound?. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 84:616–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clough, R. W. The finite element method – a personal view of its original formulation, finite elements to the troll platform, the Ivar Holand 70th Anniversary Volume, edited by K. Bell, Tapir, Norway, pp. 89–100, 1994Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doouglas T., Solomonidis S., Sandham W., Spence W.. (2002) Ultrasound imaging in lower limb prosthetics. IEEE T. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 10:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drerup B., Kraneburg S., Koller S. (2001) Visualization of pressure dose: Synopsis of peak pressure, mean pressure, load time and pressure time-integral. Clin. Biomech. 16:833–844Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faustini M. C., Neptune R. R., Crawford R. H. (2005) The quasi-static response of compliant prosthetic sockets for trans-tibial amputees using finite element methods. Med. Eng. Phys. 28:114–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fergason J., Smith D. G. (1999) Socket considerations for the patient with a transtibial amputation. Clin. Orthop. Relat. R. 361:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gefen, A., E. Linder-Ganz, Z. Yizhar, and S. S. Margulies. Tissue breakdown in residual limbs of transtibial amputees: finite element analysis, ICEM12–12th International Conference on Experimental Mechanics, Politecnico di Bari, Italy, 42–43, Invited, 2004Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gefen A., Megido-Ravid M., Itzchak Y., Arcan M. (2000) Biomechanical analysis of the three-dimensional foot structure during gait: A basic tool for clinical applications. J. Biomech. Eng. 122:630–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gefen A., Gefen N., Linder-Ganz E., Margulies S. S. (2005) In vivo muscle stiffening under bone compression promotes deep pressure sores. J. Biomech. Eng. 127:512–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    He P., Xue K., Murka P. (1997) 3-D imaging of residual limbs using ultrasound. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 34:269–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henrot P., J. Stines, F. Walter, N. Martinet, J. Paysant, A. Blum. Imaging of the painful lower limb stump. Radiographics S219–S235, 2000Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hussainy H. A., Goesling T., Datta D., Saleh M. (2004) Osteomyoplasty for transtibial amputation: A case report and review of the literature. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 16:2–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jia X., Zhang M., Lee W. C. (2004) Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb – dynamic effects. J. Biomech. 37:1371–1377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kapp S. (1999) Suspension systems for prostheses. Clin. Orthop. Relat. R. 361:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee W. C., Zhang M., Jia X., Cheung J. T. M. (2004) Finite element modeling of the contact interface between trans-tibial residual limb and prosthetic socket. Med. Eng. Phys. 26:655–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin C. C., Chang C. H., Wu C. L., Chung K. C., Liao I. C. (2004) Effects of liner stiffness for trans-tibial prosthesis: a finite element contact model. Med. Eng. Phys. 26:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Linder-Ganz, E., S. Engelberg, M. Scheinowitz, and A. Gefen. Pressure-time cell death threshold for albino rat skeletal muscles as related to pressure sore biomechanics. J. Biomech. 39:2725–2732, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lyon C. C., Kulkarni J., Zimerson E., VanRoss E., Beck M. H. (2000) Skin disorders in amputees. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 42:501–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mak A. F. T., Liu G. H. W., Lee S. Y. (1994) Biomechanical assessment of below-knee residual limb tissue. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 31:188–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mak A. F. T., Zhang M., Boone D. A.. (2001) State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: A review. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 38:161–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peters E. J. G., Childs M. R., Wunderlich R. P., Harkless L. B., Armstrong D. G., Lavery L. A. (2001) Functional status of persons with diabetes-related lower-extremity amputations. Diabetes Care 24:1799–1804PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quesada P., Skinner H. B. (1991) Analysis of a below-knee patellar tendon-bearing prosthesis: A finite element study. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 3:1–12Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reynolds D. P., Lord M. (1992) Interface load analysis for computed-aided design of below-knee prosthetic sockets. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 30:419–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sanders J. E., Daly C. H. (1993) Normal and shear stresses on a residual limb in a prosthetic socket during ambulation: comparison of finite element results with experimental measurements. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 30:191–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanders J. E., Greve J. M., Mitchell S. B., Zachariah S. G. (1998) Mechanical properties of commonly-used interface materials and their static coefficients of friction with skin and socks. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 35:161–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanders J. E., Zachariah S. G., Baker A. B., Greve J. M., Clinton C. (2000) Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees. Clin. Biomech. 15:684–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanders J. E., Zachariah S. G., Jacobson A. K., Fergason J. R. (2005) Changes in interface pressures and shear stresses over time on trans-tibial amputee subjects ambulating with prosthetic limbs: Comparison of diurnal and six-month differences. J. Biomech. 38:1566–1573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sanderson D. J., Martin P. E. (1997) Lower extremity kinematics and kinetics adaptations in unilateral below-knee amputees during walking. Gait Posture 6:126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shelton F., Lott J. W.. (2003) Conducting and interpreting interface pressure evaluations of clinical support surfaces. Geriatr. Nurs. 24:222–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shem K. L., Breakey J. W., Werner P. C. (1998) Pressure at the residual limb-socket interface in trans-tibial amputees with thigh lacer-slide joints. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 10:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Silver-Thorn M. B.. (1999) In vivo indentation of lower extremity limb soft tissues. IEEE T. Rehabil. Eng. 7:268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Silver-Thorn M. B., Childress D. C. (1996) Parametric analysis using the finite element method to investigate prosthetic interface stresses for persons with trans-tibia amputation. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 33:227–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simpson G., Fisher C., Wright D. K.. (2001) Modeling the interactions between a prosthetic socket, polyurethane liners and the residual limb in transtibial amputees using non-linear finite element analysis. Biomed. Sci. Instru. 37:343–347Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Steege, J. W., D. S. Schnur, and D. S. Childress. Prediction of pressure in the below-knee socket interface by finite element analysis, ASME Symposium on the Biomechanics of Normal and Pathological Gait, pp. 39–44, 1987Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steege, J. W., M. B. Silver-Thorn, and D. S. Childress. Design of prosthetic sockets using finite element analysis, Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of ISPO, 273, 1992Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tonuk E., Silver-Thorn M. B. (2003) Nonlinear elastic material property estimation of lower extremity residual limb tissues. IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 11:43–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tonuk E., Silver-Thorn M. B. (2004) Nonlinear viscoelastic material property estimation of lower extremity residual limb tissues. J. Biomech. Eng. 126:289–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    William H. Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, 1986Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Williamson R., Andrews B. J.. (2000) Gait event detection for FES using accelerometers and supervised machine learning. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 8:312–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yarnitzky, G., Z. Yizhar, and A. Gefen. Real-time subject-specific monitoring of internal deformations and stresses in the soft tissues of the foot: A new approach in gait analysis. J. Biomech. 39:2673–2689, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zachariah S. G., Sanders J. E. (2000) Finite element estimates of interface stress in the trans-tibial prosthesis using gap elements are different from those using automated contact. J. Biomech. 33:895–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang M., Mak A. F. T. (1999) In vivo friction properties of human skin. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 22:135–141Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang M., Mak A. F. T., Roberts V. C. (1998) Finite element modeling of a residual lower-limb in a prosthetic socket: A survey of the development in the first decade. Med. Eng. Phys. 20:360–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang M., Roberts C. (2000) Comparison of computational analysis with clinical measurement of stresses on below-knee residual limb in a prosthetic socket. Med. Eng. Phys. 22:607–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Portnoy
    • 1
  • G. Yarnitzky
    • 1
  • Z. Yizhar
    • 2
  • A. Kristal
    • 3
  • U. Oppenheim
    • 3
  • I. Siev-Ner
    • 3
  • A. Gefen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Orthopaedic Rehabilitation DepartmentTel-Ha’Shomer HospitalTel-Ha’ShomerIsrael

Personalised recommendations