Individuals who have had lower limb amputations face many other physical challenges that can compromise their health and mobility. Hence the need for a technical replacement (prosthesis) that restores the biomechanical function of the amputated element and the body's integrity. Management of lower limb prostheses for these individuals is a complicated issue. Unfortunately, the candidates who want to benefit from the usefulness of a prosthesis are a heterogeneous group with distinct ages and needs. In addition, the choice of the perfect candidate depends on the following factors: the aetiology of limb loss, the level of amputation, comorbidities and health, the postoperative stage, and the state of rehabilitation. Lower limb prostheses can be classified into three types of devices: passive, semi-powered or powered. For example, individuals with transtibial amputation (the term transtibial indicates that the amputation occurred between the knee and the ankle) are usually prescribed a prosthesis for storage and return of passive elastic energy, made of carbon fibre and works as an arc without the ability to generate energy again or to articulate. Most ankle and foot prostheses available on the market until the early 2000s were completely passive. The simplest solution for transtibial amputations is a solid prosthesis of the foot without an ankle joint [5]. As a result, the mechanical properties did not adapt to the user's walking speed and terrain type. Individuals with transtibial amputation often adopt compensatory gait strategies. These can lead to significant changes in gait dynamics, the joints loading and working, and the muscular activity of the affected and unaffected leg [6]. In the last three decades, approaches in prosthetic technology have led to significant advances, especially regarding biomechanical and user comfort [7] and in walking symmetry and energy cost [8]. An excellent example of a marketable passive prosthetic foot is the C-Walk [9], equipped only with passive components but combined suitably. As a result, it is more effective from an energy point of view compared to other prostheses in this category. The first electrically powered ankle-foot prosthesis was built in 1998 and was pneumatically operated [10]. Subsequently, from 2005 until now, studies have focused on designing and developing autonomous energy supply systems [11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18]. The main factors considered for the design of prostheses are both the mechanical properties [19; 20] and the length of the prosthesis [21]. Another factor that should not be overlooked is the weight of the prosthetic components [22]. A higher weight also increases the stress on the socket--the residual connection of the limbs, which is one of the most critical elements in the prosthesis [23]. In addition, most studies in the literature have been conducted on the evaluation of kinematic and kinetic gait [24] and foot plantar pressure [25; 26]. Magnetorheological fluids (MR) were successfully introduced into prosthetic devices after 2000. In 2001, a patent was published [27] for a variable torque magnetorheological knee prosthesis produced by Ossur Inc, Los Angeles, CA, USA [28]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [29], in 2003, presented a magnetorheological knee prosthesis that automatically adjusts the cushioning of the knee to walking amputated using only local detection of the knee, torque and strength position. In 2006, a study related to [27] was carried out, which was intended to be part of a project to create models with finite elements of the knee [30]. Another invention patent [31] was published in 2012 generally relating to powered human augmentation devices, such as lower-extremity prosthetic, orthotic, or exoskeleton apparatus, and/or humanoid robotic devices designed to emulate human biomechanics. Among the most current studies is [32], which analyzes the energy consumption of a magnetorheological active knee actuator that has been designed for transfemoral prostheses.