Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison of a New Prosthetic Suspension System with Two Existing Suspension Systems for Lower Limb Amputees

Objective The objectives of this study were to compare the effects of a newly designed magnetic suspension system with that of two existing suspension methods on pistoning inside the prosthetic socket and to compare satisfaction and perceived problems among transtibial amputees. Design In this prospective study, three lower limb prostheses with three different suspension systems were fabricated for ten transtibial amputees. The participants used each of the three prostheses for 1 mo in random order. Pistoning inside the prosthetic socket was measured by motion analysis system. The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire was used to evaluate satisfaction and perceived problems with each suspension system. Results The lowest pistoning motion was found with the suction system compared with the other two suspension systems (P < 0.05). The new suspension system showed peak pistoning values similar to that of the pin lock system (P = 0.086). The results of the questionnaire survey revealed significantly higher satisfaction rates with the new system than with the other two systems in donning and doffing, walking, uneven walking, stair negotiation, and overall satisfaction (P < 0.05). Conclusions The new suspension system has the potential to be used as an alternative to the available suspension systems. The pistoning motion was comparable to that of the other two systems. The new system showed compatible prosthetic suspension with the other two systems (suction and pin lock). The satisfaction with donning and doffing was high with the magnetic system. Moreover, the subjects reported fewer problems with the new system.

[1]  P. Convery,et al.  Ultrasound study of the motion of the residual femur within a transfemoral socket during gait , 2000, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[2]  K Trieb,et al.  Silicone soft socket system: its effect on the rehabilitation of geriatric patients with transfemoral amputations. , 1999, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  F B Van de Weg,et al.  A questionnaire survey of the effect of different interface types on patient satisfaction and perceived problems among trans-tibial amputees , 2005, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[4]  J Cluitmans,et al.  Experiences with respect to the ICEROSS system for trans-tibial prostheses , 1994, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[5]  Gary M. Berke,et al.  Radiographic Comparison of Vertical Tibial Translation Using Two Types of Suspensions on a Transtibial Prosthesis: A Case Study , 2001 .

[6]  D. Windt,et al.  A questionnaire survey of the effect of different interface types on patient satisfaction and perceived problems among trans-tibial amputees. , 2005 .

[7]  J. Geertzen,et al.  Literature review of the possible advantages of silicon liner socket use in trans-tibial prostheses , 2005, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[8]  Noor Azuan Abu Osman,et al.  Transtibial prosthetic suspension: less pistoning versus easy donning and doffing. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[9]  Simon Jenkins Sports Science Handbook , 1996 .

[10]  Tracy L Beil,et al.  Comparison of interface pressures with pin and suction suspension systems. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[11]  P. Dijkstra,et al.  Skin problems of the stump and hand function in lower limb amputees: A historic cohort study , 2008, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[12]  Noor Azuan Abu Osman,et al.  Clinical evaluation of two prosthetic suspension systems in a bilateral transtibial amputee. , 2012, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[13]  G. Street,et al.  A comparison of trans-tibial amputee suction and vacuum socket conditions , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[14]  Vacuum Suspension and its Effects on the Limb Eng lish Ed itio , 2007 .

[15]  A. Eshraghi,et al.  Pistoning assessment in lower limb prosthetic sockets , 2012, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[16]  K Yiğiter,et al.  Comparison of the effects of patellar tendon bearing and total surface bearing sockets on prosthetic fitting and rehabilitation , 2002, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[17]  I McCurdie,et al.  ICEROSS — a consensus view: A questionnaire survey of the use of ICEROSS in the United Kingdom , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[18]  Ö. Kristinsson,et al.  The ICEROSS concept: A discussion of a philosophy , 1993, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[19]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  A noncontact sensor for measurement of distal residual-limb position during walking. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[20]  T. Nosaka,et al.  Suspension effect and dynamic evaluation of the total surface bearing (TSB) trans-tibial prosthesis: A comparison with the patellar tendon bearing (PTB) trans-tibial prosthesis , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[21]  Noor Azuan Abu Osman,et al.  A new approach for the pistoning measurement in transtibial prosthesis , 2011, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[22]  C. Gauthier-Gagnon,et al.  Prosthetic profile of the amputee questionnaire: validity and reliability. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  G D Reiber,et al.  Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[24]  H Gholizadeh,et al.  Transtibial prosthetic socket pistoning: static evaluation of Seal-In(®) X5 and Dermo(®) Liner using motion analysis system. , 2012, Clinical biomechanics.

[25]  David A Boone,et al.  Quantification of prosthetic outcomes: elastomeric gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspension. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[26]  J. Tukey Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. , 1949, Biometrics.

[27]  Tracy L Beil,et al.  Interface pressures during ambulation using suction and vacuum-assisted prosthetic sockets. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.