Elan Product Page Background Banner
Elan Product Page Foreground Banner

ElanIC is the world’s lightest and most compact waterproof microprocessor hydraulic ankle. It features a discreet, compact and lightweight design that is clinically proven to give greater comfort, improved safety, a smoother gait and balanced limb loading.

  • Activity level 3
  • Suitable for outdoor use
  • Microprocessor control
  • Bluetooth connectivity

Do More. Feel Good.

Designed to meet your unique needs as an amputee, ElanIC mimics the natural function of the foot and ankle, adapting hydraulic resistance and providing exceptional energy return to give you stability on slopes, steps and uneven terrain. By enabling you to distribute weight evenly when standing and walking, the result is a smoother, safer, more natural walking experience.

  • Peace of Mind

    Peace of Mind

    Featuring simple and safe induction charging technology, ElanIC is completely sealed from the elements meaning that it is waterproof, giving you peace of mind around water.

  • Compact & Lightweight

    Compact & Lightweight

    ElanIC is the world’s lightest and most compact waterproof microprocessor hydraulic ankle, meaning you don’t have to compromise on the activities you love.

  • Long Term Health

    Long Term Health

    ElanIC works hard to give you the support you need while protecting your bones and joints from the additional wear and tear that is common for many users of prosthetic limbs.

Sian’s Story

Julie’s Story

Why Elan is Different

Hills and slopes offer unique challenges for amputees. With Microprocessor Active Resistance Control, Elan adjusts the plantar flexion and dorsiflexion resistance levels to provide greater stability for standing and down slopes and greater assistance for walking fast or uphill.

Ramp Brake

When walking downhill, the heel softens allowing the foot to quickly align to the slope for improved safety and security. At the same time, an increased braking effect stabilises the user for a more controlled descent.

Ramp Assist / Fast Walk

When walking fast or up slopes, the heel stiffens allowing for optimal energy storage and return. This aids forward momentum and reduces the effort needed to walk faster or uphill.

Standing Support

When ElanIC senses the user is stationary the ankle increases resistance for greater standing stability. Self-alignment is maintained for a more natural posture and even weight distribution across both limbs.

Swing Clearance

During swing phase, when the foot is not in contact with the ground, the ankle remains in a toe up position to give increased toe clearance on every step.

Scientifically Proven

ElanIC incorporates Blatchford’s award-winning biomimetic hydraulic technology which provides a range of scientifically proven* benefits:

  • Increased ground clearance reducing risk of trips and falls
  • Improved balance through hydraulic self-alignment and microprocessor standing support
  • Improved control and safety on slope negotiation
  • Improved kinetic gait symmetry
  • Reduced loading on the residual limb
  • Increased walking speed
Clinical Compendium Cover 1

Clinical Compendium

Blatchford Biomimetic Hydraulic Technology mimics the dynamic and adaptive qualities of muscle actuation to encourage more natural gait. Multiple independent scientific studies, comparing Blatchford hydraulic ankle-feet to non-hydraulic feet, have shown:

  • Greater comfort, reduced socket pressures
  • Improved safety, reduced risk of trips and falls
  • Smoother, easier and more natural gait
  • More evenly balanced inter-limb loading
  • Greater satisfaction
Download PDF
Product Download 2

Clinical Evidence

Over a decade after challenging conventional wisdom, new scientific evidence continues to be published on the medical advantages of hydraulic ankles. Discover our White Paper ‘A Study of Hydraulic Ankles’.

Download PDF

Technical Support

Use the videos below to help guide you through some of the most common fitting tasks with ElanIC.

Induction Charging

Battery Status Check

Enabling Bluetooth

Programming ElanIC

ElanIC Clinical Evidence Reference

Improvements in Clinical Outcomes using Elan compared to ESR feet

  • Safety

    Reduced risk of tripping and falls

    • Increased minimum toe clearance during swing phase1,2

    Improved knee stability on the prosthetic side during slope descent

    • Increased mid-stance external prosthetic knee extensor moment3

    Improving standing balance on a slope

    • 24-25% reduction in mean inter-limb centre-of-pressure root mean square (COP RMS)4
  • Energy Expenditure

    Reduced energy expenditure during walking

    • Mean 11.8% reduction in energy use on level ground, across all walking speeds5
    • Mean 20.2% reduction in energy use on slopes, across all gradients5
    • Mean 8.3% faster walking speed for the same amount of effort5
  • Mobility

    Improved gait performance

    • Faster self-selected walking speed2,6-9

    Improved ground compliance when walking on slopes

    • Increased plantarflexion peak during level walking, fast level walking and cambered walking10
    • Increased dorsiflexion peak during level walking, fast level walking and cambered walking10

    Less of a prosthetic “dead spot” during gait

    • Reduced aggregate negative COP displacement7
    • Centre-of-pressure passes anterior to the shank statistically significantly earlier in stance7
    • Increased minimum instantaneous COM velocity during prosthetic-limb single support phase7
    • Reduced peak negative COP velocity9
    • Reduced COP posterior travel distance9

    Improved ground compliance when walking on slopes

    • Increased plantarflexion range during slope descent3
    • Increased dorsiflexion range during slope ascent3

    Less effort on residual hip for trans-femoral amputees on varied terrains

    • Reduced the mean hip extension and flexion moments11

    Effects consistent over time

    • Same gait variable changes in two gait lab sessions one year apart6
    • Magnitude of changes comparable between sessions6

    Brake mode during slope descent to control momentum build up

    • Reduced mean prosthetic shank angular velocity in single support12
    • Increased Unified Deformable Segment (prosthetic ‘ankle’) negative work12

    Less gait compensation movements during slope descent

    • Reduced residual knee flexion at loading response12
  • Residual Limb Health

    Helps protect vulnerable limb tissue, reducing likelihood of damage

    • Reduced peak stresses on residual limb13
    • Reduced stress RMS on residual limb13
    • Reduced loading rates on residual limb13
  • Loading symmetry

    Greater contribution of prosthetic limb to support during walking

    • Increased residual knee peak extension moment6
    • Decreased residual knee peak flexion moment6
    • Increased residual knee negative work8

    Reduced reliance on sound limb for support during walking

    • Reduced intact limb peak hip flexion moment8
    • Reduced intact limb peak dorsiflexion moment8
    • Reduced intact ankle negative work and total work8
    • Reduced intact limb total joint work8

    Better symmetry of loading between prosthetic and sound limbs during standing on a slope

    • Degree of asymmetry closer to zero for 5/5 amputees4

    Reduced residual and sound joint moments during standing of a slope

    • Significant reductions in both prosthetic and sound support moments14

    Reduced residual joint moments during standing of a slope for bilateral amputees

    • Significant reductions in prosthetic support moment14
    • Permitted ‘natural’ ground reaction vector sagittal plane position, relative to knee joint centres14

    Less pressure on the sole of the contralateral foot

    • Peak plantar-pressure15

    Improved gait symmetry

    • Reduced stance phase timing asymmetry16
  • User satisfaction

    Patient reported outcome measures indicate improvements

    • Mean improvement across all Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire domains17
    • Bilateral patients showed highest mean improvement in satisfaction17

    Subjective user preference for hydraulic ankle

    • 13/13 participants preferred hydraulic ankle15

Improvements in Clinical Outcomes using Elan compared to non-microprocessor-control hydraulic ankle-feet

  • Safety

    Improved knee stability on the prosthetic side during slope descent

    • Increased mid-stance external prosthetic knee extensor moment3
  • Mobility

    Improved ground compliance when walking down slopes

    • Reduced time to foot flat12

    Brake mode during slope descent increases resistance to dorsiflexion to control momentum build up

    • Reduced dorsiflexion range during slope descent3
    • Reduced mean prosthetic shank angular velocity in single support12
    • Increased Unified Deformable Segment (prosthetic ‘ankle’) negative work12
    • Transition from dorsiflexion to plantarflexion moment occurs earlier in stance phase18
    • Increase in mean prosthetic ‘ankle’ plantarflexion moment integral18

    Assist mode during slope ascent decreases resistance to dorsiflexion to allow easier progression

    • Transition from dorsiflexion to plantarflexion moment occurs later in stance phase18
    • Decrease in mean prosthetic ‘ankle’ plantarflexion moment integral18

    Less gait compensation movements during slope descent

    Reduced residual knee flexion at loading response12

  • Loading symmetry

    Greater reliance on prosthetic side for bodyweight support during slope descent

    • Increased support moment integral18

    Less reliance on sound side for bodyweight support during slope descent

    • Decreased support moment integral18

    Less reliance on sound side for bodyweight support during slope ascent

    • Decreased support moment integral18

    Reduced sound joint moments during standing of a slope

    • Significant reductions in sound support moment14

    Reduced residual joint moments during standing of a slope for bilateral amputees

    • Significant reductions in prosthetic support moment14
    • Permitted ‘natural’ ground reaction vector sagittal plane position, relative to knee joint centres14

References

  • Full Reference Listing
    1. Riveras M, Ravera E, Ewins D, Shaheen AF, Catalfamo-Formento P.

      Minimum toe clearance and tripping probability in people with unilateral transtibial amputation walking on ramps with different prosthetic designs. Gait & Posture. 2020 Sep 1;81:41-8.

    2. Johnson L, De Asha AR, Munjal R, et al.

      Toe clearance when walking in people with unilateral transtibial amputation: effects of passive hydraulic ankle. J Rehabil Res Dev 2014; 51: 429.

    3. Bai X, Ewins D, Crocombe AD, et al.

      A biomechanical assessment of hydraulic ankle-foot devices with and without micro-processor control during slope ambulation in trans-femoral amputees. PLOS ONE 2018; 13: e0205093.

    4. McGrath M, Laszczak P, Zahedi S, et al.

      Microprocessor knees with “standing support” and articulating, hydraulic ankles improve balance control and inter-limb loading during quiet standing. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2018; 5: 2055668318795396.

    5. Askew GN, McFarlane LA, Minetti AE, et al.

      Energy cost of ambulation in trans-tibial amputees using a dynamic-response foot with hydraulic versus rigid ‘ankle’: insights from body centre of mass dynamics. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil 2019; 16: 39.

    6. De Asha AR, Barnett CT, Struchkov V, et al.

      Which Prosthetic Foot to Prescribe?: Biomechanical Differences Found during a Single-Session Comparison of Different Foot Types Hold True 1 Year Later. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2017; 29: 39–43.

    7. De Asha AR, Munjal R, Kulkarni J, et al.

      Impact on the biomechanics of overground gait of using an ‘Echelon’hydraulic ankle–foot device in unilateral trans-tibial and trans-femoral amputees. Clin Biomech 2014; 29: 728–734.

    8. De Asha AR, Munjal R, Kulkarni J, et al.

      Walking speed related joint kinetic alterations in trans-tibial amputees: impact of hydraulic’ankle’damping. J Neuroengineering Rehabil 2013; 10: 1.

    9. De Asha AR, Johnson L, Munjal R, et al.

      Attenuation of centre-of-pressure trajectory fluctuations under the prosthetic foot when using an articulating hydraulic ankle attachment compared to fixed attachment. Clin Biomech 2013; 28: 218–224.

    10. Bai X, Ewins D, Crocombe AD, et al.

      Kinematic and biomimetic assessment of a hydraulic ankle/foot in level ground and camber walking. PLOS ONE 2017; 12: e0180836.

    11. Alexander N, Strutzenberger G, Kroell J, et al.

      Joint Moments During Downhill and Uphill Walking of a Person with Transfemoral Amputation with a Hydraulic Articulating and a Rigid Prosthetic Ankle—A Case Study. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2018; 30: 46–54.

    12. Struchkov V, Buckley JG.

      Biomechanics of ramp descent in unilateral trans-tibial amputees: Comparison of a microprocessor controlled foot with conventional ankle–foot mechanisms. Clin Biomech 2016; 32: 164–170.

    13. Portnoy S, Kristal A, Gefen A, et al.

      Outdoor dynamic subject-specific evaluation of internal stresses in the residual limb: hydraulic energy-stored prosthetic foot compared to conventional energy-stored prosthetic feet. Gait Posture 2012; 35: 121–125.

    14. McGrath M, Davies KC, Laszczak P, et al.

      The influence of hydraulic ankles and microprocessor-control on the biomechanics of trans-tibial amputees during quiet standing on a 5° slope. Can Prosthet Orthot J; 2.

    15. Moore R.

      Effect of a Prosthetic Foot with a Hydraulic Ankle Unit on the Contralateral Foot Peak Plantar Pressures in Individuals with Unilateral Amputation. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2018; 30: 165–70.

    16. Moore R.

      Effect on Stance Phase Timing Asymmetry in Individuals with Amputation Using Hydraulic Ankle Units. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2016; 28: 44–48.

    17. Sedki I, Moore R.

      Patient evaluation of the Echelon foot using the Seattle Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013; 37: 250–254.

    18. McGrath M, Laszczak P, Zahedi S, et al.

      The influence of a microprocessor-controlled hydraulic ankle on the kinetic symmetry of trans-tibial amputees during ramp walking: a case series. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2018; 5: 2055668318790650.

ElanIC Documentation

  • Product Information
  • Datasheet
  • References
    • Johnson L, De Asha AR, Munjal R, et al.
      Toe clearance when walking in people with unilateral transtibial amputation: effects of passive hydraulic ankle. J Rehabil Res Dev 2014; 51: 429.
    • Bai X, Ewins D, Crocombe AD, et al.
      A biomechanical assessment of hydraulic ankle-foot devices with and without micro-processor control during slope ambulation in trans-femoral amputees. PLOS ONE 2018; 13: e0205093.
    • McGrath M, Laszczak P, Zahedi S, et al.
      Microprocessor knees with “standing support” and articulating, hydraulic ankles improve balance control and inter-limb loading during quiet standing. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2018; 5: 2055668318795396.
    • Askew GN, McFarlane LA, Minetti AE, et al.
      Energy cost of ambulation in trans-tibial amputees using a dynamic-response foot with hydraulic versus rigid ‘ankle’: insights from body centre of mass dynamics. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil 2019; 16: 39.
    • De Asha AR, Barnett CT, Struchkov V, et al.
      Which Prosthetic Foot to Prescribe?: Biomechanical Differences Found during a Single-Session Comparison of Different Foot Types Hold True 1 Year Later. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2017; 29: 39–43.
    • De Asha AR, Munjal R, Kulkarni J, et al.
      Walking speed related joint kinetic alterations in trans-tibial amputees: impact of hydraulic’ankle’damping. J Neuroengineering Rehabil 2013; 10: 1.
    • De Asha AR, Johnson L, Munjal R, et al.
      Attenuation of centre-of-pressure trajectory fluctuations under the prosthetic foot when using an articulating hydraulic ankle attachment compared to fixed attachment. Clin Biomech 2013; 28: 218–224.
    • Bai X, Ewins D, Crocombe AD, et al.
      Kinematic and biomimetic assessment of a hydraulic ankle/foot in level ground and camber walking. PLOS ONE 2017; 12: e0180836.
    • Alexander N, Strutzenberger G, Kroell J, et al.
      Joint Moments During Downhill and Uphill Walking of a Person with Transfemoral Amputation with a Hydraulic Articulating and a Rigid Prosthetic Ankle—A Case Study. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2018; 30: 46–54.
    • Struchkov V, Buckley JG.
      Biomechanics of ramp descent in unilateral trans-tibial amputees: Comparison of a microprocessor controlled foot with conventional ankle–foot mechanisms. Clin Biomech 2016; 32: 164–170.
    • Portnoy S, Kristal A, Gefen A, et al.
      Outdoor dynamic subject-specific evaluation of internal stresses in the residual limb: hydraulic energy-stored prosthetic foot compared to conventional energy-stored prosthetic feet. Gait Posture 2012; 35: 121–125.
    • McGrath M, Davies KC, Laszczak P, et al.
      The influence of hydraulic ankles and microprocessor-control on the biomechanics of trans-tibial amputees during quiet standing on a 5° slope. Can Prosthet Orthot J; 2.
    • Moore R.
      Effect of a Prosthetic Foot with a Hydraulic Ankle Unit on the Contralateral Foot Peak Plantar Pressures in Individuals with Unilateral Amputation. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2018; 30: 165–70.
    • Moore R.
      Effect on Stance Phase Timing Asymmetry in Individuals with Amputation Using Hydraulic Ankle Units. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2016; 28: 44–48.
    • Sedki I, Moore R.
      Patient evaluation of the Echelon foot using the Seattle Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013; 37: 250–254.
    • McGrath M, Laszczak P, Zahedi S, et al.
      The influence of a microprocessor-controlled hydraulic ankle on the kinetic symmetry of trans-tibial amputees during ramp walking: a case series. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2018; 5: 2055668318790650.
  • Other downloads
    • ElanIC - 938447 ElanIC Android App IFU Iss1
    • ElanIC - Elan IC Quick Start Guide 938463 Iss2