Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 10, pp 3026–3035 | Cite as

How Does Ankle-foot Orthosis Stiffness Affect Gait in Patients With Lower Limb Salvage?

  • Elizabeth Russell Esposito
  • Ryan V. Blanck
  • Nicole G. Harper
  • Joseph R. Hsu
  • Jason M. Wilken
Symposium: Recent Advances in Amputation Surgery and Rehabilitation



Ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) are commonly prescribed during rehabilitation after limb salvage. AFO stiffness is selected to help mitigate gait deficiencies. A new custom dynamic AFO, the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO), is available to injured service members but prescription guidelines are limited.


In this study we ask (1) does dynamic AFO stiffness affect gait parameters such as joint angles, moments, and powers; and (2) can a given dynamic AFO stiffness normalize gait mechanics to noninjured control subjects?


Thirteen patients with lower limb salvage (ankle arthrodesis, neuropathy, foot/ankle reconstruction, etc) after major lower extremity trauma and 13 control subjects who had no lower extremity trauma and wore no orthosis underwent gait analysis at a standardized speed. Patients wore their custom IDEO with posterior struts of three different stiffnesses: nominal (clinically prescribed stiffness), compliant (20% less stiff), and stiff (20% stiffer). Joint angles, moments, powers, and ground reaction forces were compared across the varying stiffnesses of the orthoses tested and between the patient and control groups.


An increase in AFO compliance resulted in 20% to 26% less knee flexion relative to the nominal (p = 0.003) and stiff (p = 0.001) conditions, respectively. Ankle range of motion and power generation were, on average, 56% (p < 0.001) and 63% (p < 0.001), respectively, less than controls as a result of the relatively fixed ankle position.


Patients with limb salvage readily adapted to different dynamic AFO stiffnesses and demonstrated few biomechanical differences among conditions during walking. None of the stiffness conditions normalized gait to controls.

Clinical Relevance

The general lack of differences across a 40% range of strut stiffness suggests that orthotists do not need to invest large amounts of time identifying optimal device stiffness for patients who use dynamic AFOs for low-impact activities such as walking. However, choosing a stiffer strut may more readily translate to higher-impact activities and offer less chance of mechanical failure.


Ground Reaction Force Limb Salvage Gait Parameter Spastic Diplegia Gait Mechanic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Harmony Choi, Derek Haight, Jennifer Aldridge Whitehead, Kelly Rodriguez, Dr Deanna Gates, and Dr Richard Neptune for their contributions to this project.


  1. 1.
    Baker PA, Hewison SR. Gait recovery pattern of unilateral lower limb amputees during rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1990;14:80–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartonek A, Eriksson M, Gutierrez-Farewik EM. Effects of carbon fibre spring orthoses on gait in ambulatory children with motor disorders and plantarflexor weakness. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49:615–620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartonek A, Eriksson M, Gutierrez-Farewik EM. A new carbon fibre spring orthosis for children with plantarflexor weakness. Gait Posture. 2007;25:652–656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bregman DJ, De Groot V, Van Diggele P, Meulman H, Houdijk H, Harlaar J. Polypropylene ankle foot orthoses to overcome drop-foot gait in central neurological patients: a mechanical and functional evaluation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34:293–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bregman DJ, Harlaar J, Meskers CG, de Groot V. Spring-like Ankle Foot Orthoses reduce the energy cost of walking by taking over ankle work. Gait Posture. 2012;35:148–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bregman DJJ, van der Krogt MM, de Groot V, Harlaar J, Wisse M, Collins SH. The effect of ankle foot orthosis stiffness on the energy cost of walking: a simulation study. Clin Biomech. 2011;26:955–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castillo RC, MacKenzie EJ, Archer KR, Bosse MJ, Webb LX. Evidence of beneficial effect of physical therapy after lower-extremity trauma. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1873–1879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins SH, Kuo AD. Recycling energy to restore impaired ankle function during human walking. Plos One. 2010;5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crabtree CA, Higginson JS. Modeling neuromuscular effects of ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) in computer simulations of gait. Gait Posture. 2009;29:65–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Visser E, Mulder T, Schreuder HWB, Veth RPH, Duysens J. Gait and electromyographic analysis of patients recovering after limb-saving surgery. Clin Biomech. 2000;15:592–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dempster W. Space Requirements of the Seated Operator. WADC Technical Report (TR-55-159). Dayton, OH, USA: Wright Patterson Air Force Base; 1955.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Desloovere K, Molenaers G, Van Gestel L, Huenaerts C, Van Campenhout A, Callewaert B, Van de Walle P, Seyler J. How can push-off be preserved during use of an ankle foot orthosis in children with hemiplegia? A prospective controlled study. Gait Posture. 2006;24:142–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faustini MC, Neptune RR, Crawford RH, Stanhope SJ. Manufacture of passive dynamic ankle-foot orthoses using selective laser sintering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008;55:784–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feuerbach JW, Grabiner MD. Effect of the aircast on unilateral postural control—amplitude and frequency variables. J Orthop Sport Phys. 1993;17:149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greene TA, Hillman SK. Comparison of support provided by a semirigid orthosis and adhesive ankle taping before, during, and after exercise. Am J Sport Med. 1990;18:498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greene TA, Wight CR. A comparative support evaluation of three ankle orthoses before, during, and after exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1990;11:453–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grogan BF, Hsu JR, Skeletal Trauma Research Consortium. Volumetric muscle loss. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:S35–S37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harlaar J, Brehm M, Becher JG, Bregman DJJ, Buurke J, Holtkamp F, De Groot V, Nollet F. Studies examining the efficacy of Ankle Foot Orthoses should report activity level and mechanical evidence. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34:327–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hartsell HD. The effects of external bracing on joint position sense awareness for the chronically unstable ankle. J Sport Rehabil. 2000;9:279–289.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartsell HD, Spaulding SJ. Effectiveness of external orthotic support on passive soft tissue resistance of the chronically unstable ankle. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18:144–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kobayashi T, Leung AK, Akazawa Y, Hutchins SW. The effect of varying the plantarflexion resistance of an ankle-foot orthosis on knee joint kinematics in patients with stroke. Gait Posture. 2013;37:457–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuo AD. Energetics of actively powered locomotion using the simplest walking model. J Biomech Eng. 2002;124:113–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lehmann JF, Condon SM, Delateur BJ, Price R. Gait abnormalities in peroneal nerve paralysis and their corrections by orthoses—a biomechanical study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:380–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewis CL, Ferris DP. Walking with increased ankle pushoff decreases hip muscle moments. J Biomech. 2008;41:2082–2089.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miyazaki S, Yamamoto S, Kubota T. Effect of ankle-foot orthosis on active ankle moment in patients with hemiparesis. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1997;35:381–385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nadeau S, Gravel D, Arsenault AB, Bourbonnais D. Plantarflexor weakness as a limiting factor of gait speed in stroke subjects and the compensating role of hip flexors. Clin Biomech. 1999;14:125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neptune RR, Kautz SA, Zajac FE. Contributions of the individual ankle plantar flexors to support, forward progression and swing initiation during walking. J Biomech. 2001;34:1387–1398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nigg BM, Baltich J, Maurer C, Federolf P. Shoe midsole hardness, sex and age effects on lower extremity kinematics during running. J Biomech. 2012;45:1692–1697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olgiati R, Burgunder JM, Mumenthaler M. Increased energy-cost of walking in multiple-sclerosis—effect of spasticity, ataxia, and weakness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69:846–849.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Owens BD, Kragh JF, Macaitis J, Svoboda SJ, Wenke JC. Characterization of extremity wounds in operation Iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:254–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Owens JG. Physical therapy of the patient with foot and ankle injuries sustained in combat. Foot Ankle Clin. 2010;15:175–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Owens JG, Blair JA, Patzkowski JC, Blanck RV, Hsu JR. Return to running and sports participation after limb salvage. J Trauma. 2011;71:S120–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patzkowski JC, Blanck RV, Owens JG, Wilken JM, Kirk KL, Wenke JC, Hsu JR. Comparative effect of orthosis design on functional performance. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:507–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shawen SB, Keeling JJ, Branstetter J, Kirk KL, Ficke JR. The mangled foot and leg: salvage versus amputation. Foot Ankle Clin. 2010;15:63–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    South BJ, Fey NP, Bosker G, Neptune RR. Manufacture of energy storage and return prosthetic feet using selective laser sintering. J Biomech Eng. 2010;132.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sumiya T, Suzuki Y, Kasahara T. Stiffness control in posterior-type plastic ankle-foot orthoses: effect of ankle trimline .2. Orthosis characteristics and orthosis/patient matching. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1996;20:132–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Surve I, Schwellnus MP, Noakes T, Lombard C. A Fivefold reduction in the incidence of recurrent ankle sprains in soccer players using the sport-stirrup orthosis. Am J Sport Med. 1994;22:601–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vaughan CL, O’Malley MJ. Froude and the contribution of naval architecture to our understanding of bipedal locomotion. Gait Posture. 2005;21:350–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture. 1999;9:207–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wiley JP, Nigg BM. The effect of an ankle orthosis on ankle range of motion and performance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996;23:362–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilken JM, Rodriguez KM, Brawner M, Darter BJ. Reliability and minimal detectible change values for gait kinematics and kinetics in healthy adults. Gait Posture. 2012;35:301–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolf SI, Alimusaj M, Rettig O, Doderlein L. Dynamic assist by carbon fiber spring AFOs for patients with myelomeningocele. Gait Posture. 2008;28:175–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Russell Esposito
    • 1
  • Ryan V. Blanck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicole G. Harper
    • 3
  • Joseph R. Hsu
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jason M. Wilken
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Intrepid, Department of Orthopaedics and RehabilitationBrooke Army Medical CenterFt Sam HoustonUSA
  2. 2.Hanger, IncTacomaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cockrell School of EngineeringUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedics and RehabilitationBrooke Army Medical CenterFt Sam HoustonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations