Advertisement

ReMotion Knee: Scaling of an Affordable Prosthetic Knee for Developing Countries

  • Samuel HamnerEmail author
  • Vinesh Narayan
  • Nicole Rappin
  • Krista Donaldson
Conference paper

Abstract

Amputees living in developing countries have a profound need for affordable and reliable lower limb prosthetic devices. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are approximately 30 million amputees living in low-income countries, 85–95 % of whom lack access to prosthetic devices. Effective prosthetics can significantly change the lives of these amputees by increasing the opportunity for employment and providing improvements to long-term health and well-being. However, current solutions are inadequate: state-of-the-art devices are cost-prohibitive, while low-cost devices are often of poor quality and/or provide unreliable performance. The introduction of new devices is hampered by the lack of a cohesive prosthetics industry in low-income areas; the current network of low-cost prosthetic clinics is informal and loosely organized with significant disparities in geography, patient volume and demographics, device procurement, clinical and logistical infrastructure, and funding. D-Rev has designed the ReMotion Knee, an affordable polycentric prosthetic knee joint that performs on par with devices in high-income countries. As of October 2014, over 6200 amputees have been fitted with the JaipurKnee, the initial version of the ReMotion Knee, through a partnership with the Jaipur Foot Organization. D-Rev is currently scaling production of the ReMotion Knee using centralized manufacturing and distribution to serve existing clinics and increase the availability of devices for amputees without access to appropriate care. D-Rev aims to develop products that target these customers through economically sustainable models and provide measurable impact in the lives of the world’s amputees.

Keywords

Prosthetic Device Neonatal Jaundice Prosthetic Component Natural Knee Prosthetic Knee 
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.

References

  1. Andrysek, J. (2010). Lower-limb prosthetic technologies in the developing world: A review of literature from 1994–2010. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 34(4), 378–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Condie, E., Scott, H., & Treweek, S. (2006). Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: A review of the literature 1995 to 2005. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 18(6), 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CR Equipments (2013). CR Equipements Catalog. http://www.crequipements.ch/CatalogCRE/ Accessed 21 Jan 2013.
  4. Cummings, D. (1996). Prosthetics in the developing world: A review of the literature. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 20(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
  5. Deathe, A. B., & Miller, W. C. (2005). The L test of functional mobility: Measurement properties of a modified version of the timed “up & go” test designed for people with lower-limb amputations. Physical Therapy, 85(7), 626–635.Google Scholar
  6. Gallagher, P., Franchignoni, F., Giordano, A., & MacLachlan, M. (2010). Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: A psychometric assessment using classical test theory and rasch analysis. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(6), 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gard, S. (1996). The influence of four-bar linkage knees on prosthetic swing-phase floor clearance. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 8(2), 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grisé, M. C., Gauthier-Gagnon, C., & Martineau, G. G. (1993). Prosthetic profile of people with lower extremity amputation: Conception and design of a follow-up questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74(8), 862–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horgan, O., & MacLachlan, M. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: A review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(14–15), 837–850. doi: 10.1080/09638280410001708869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. International Institute for Population Sciences [IIPS] (2007). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) (Vol. 1), 2005-06. Mumbai: IIPS.Google Scholar
  11. Legro, M. W., Reiber, G. D., Smith, D. G., del Aguila, M., Larsen, J., & Boone, D. (1998). Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: Assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79(8), 931–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morris, J. N., & Hardman, A. E. (1997). Walking to health. Sport Medicine, 23(5), 306–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pearlman, J., Cooper, R. A., Krizack, M., Lindsley, A., Wu, Y., Reisinger, K. D., et al. (2008). Lower-limb prostheses and wheelchairs in low-income countries. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 27(2), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Radcliffe, C. W. (1977). The Knud Jansen lecture: Above-knee prosthetics. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 1(3), 146–160.Google Scholar
  15. Radcliffe, C. W. (1994). Four-bar linkage prosthetic knee mechanisms: Kinematics, alignment, and prescription criteria. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 18(3), 159–173.Google Scholar
  16. Radcliffe, C. W. (2003). Biomechanics of knee stability control with four-bar prosthetic knees. In Proceedings of the ISPO Australia Annual Meeting. Google Scholar
  17. Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Improved Technology Access for Landmine Survivors (2006). State-of-the-Science on Appropriate Technology for Developing Countries. State-of-the-Science Appropr. Technol. Dev. Ctries.Google Scholar
  18. Rybarczyk, B., Nyenhuis, D. L., Nicholas, J. J., Cash, S. M., & Kaiser, J. (1995). Body image, perceived social stigma, and the prediction of psychosocial adjustment to leg amputation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 40(2), 95–110. doi: 10.1037/0090-5550.40.2.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schoppen, T., Boonstra, A., Groothoff, J. W., de Vries, J., Göeken, L. N., & Eisma, W. H. (1999). The timed “up and go” test: Reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(7), 825–828. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90234-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] (2011). The state of world population 2011, p. 124.Google Scholar
  21. World Health Organization [WHO] (2011). World report on disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 325.Google Scholar
  22. World Health Organization [WHO], International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics [IPSO]. (2004). Guidelines for training personnel in developing countries for prosthetics and orthotics services. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.Google Scholar
  23. Yinusa, W., & Ugbeye, M. (2003). Problems of amputation surgery in a developing country. International Orthopaedics, 27(2), 121–124. doi: 10.1007/s00264-002-0421-x.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Hamner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vinesh Narayan
    • 1
  • Nicole Rappin
    • 1
  • Krista Donaldson
    • 1
  1. 1.D-RevSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations