Transfemoral Prosthesis Suspension Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to find the scientific evidence pertaining to various transfemoral suspension systems to provide selection criteria for clinicians. To this end, databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were explored. The following key words, as well as their combinations and synonyms, were used for the search: transfemoral prosthesis, prosthetic suspension, lower limb prosthesis, above-knee prosthesis, prosthetic liner, transfemoral, and prosthetic socket. The study design, research instrument, sampling method, outcome measures, and protocols of articles were reviewed. On the basis of the selection criteria, 16 articles (11 prospective studies and 5 surveys) were reviewed. The main causes of reluctance to prosthesis, aside from energy expenditure, were socket-related problems such as discomfort, perspiration, and skin problems. Osseointegration was a suspension option, yet it is rarely applied because of several drawbacks, such as extended rehabilitation process, risk for fracture, and infection along with excessive cost. In conclusion, no clinical evidence was found as a “standard” system of suspension and socket design for all transfemoral amputees. However, among various suspension systems for transfemoral amputees, the soft insert or double socket was favored by most users in terms of function and comfort.

[1]  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 .

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

[4]  R W Wirta,et al.  Analysis of below-knee suspension systems: effect on gait. , 1990, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[5]  Glenn K Klute,et al.  Prosthetic Liners for Lower Limb Amputees: A Review of the Literature , 2010, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[6]  Charles H. Pritham,et al.  Evolution and Development of the Silicone Suction Socket (3S) for Below-Knee Prostheses , 1989 .

[7]  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.

[8]  K. Hagberg,et al.  Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: A survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[9]  M. Heim,et al.  Silicone suspension of external prostheses , 1997 .

[10]  Noor Azuan Abu Osman,et al.  Qualitative study of prosthetic suspension systems on transtibial amputees' satisfaction and perceived problems with their prosthetic devices. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  U. Erikson,et al.  Roentgenological study of certain stump-socket relationships in above-knee amputees with special regard to tissue proportions, socket fit and attachment stability. , 1973, Upsala journal of medical sciences.

[12]  K. Hagberg,et al.  Socket Versus Bone-Anchored Trans-Femoral Prostheses: Hip Range of Motion and Sitting Comfort , 2005, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[13]  H. Vet,et al.  The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  J. Sullivan,et al.  Rehabilitation of the transfemoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: The United Kingdom experience , 2003, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  K. Hagberg,et al.  Osseointegrated Titanium Implants for Limb Prostheses Attachments: Infectious Complications , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  K. Hagberg,et al.  One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses--rehabilitation perspective. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[17]  M. Nash,et al.  The CAT-CAM socket and quadrilateral socket: A comparison of energy cost during ambulation , 1993, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

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

[19]  Prosthesis Intolerance in Patients with Transfemoral Amputation: A Videocapillaroscopic Study , 2004, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[20]  T. Waris,et al.  Cold injury of the rat skin. A fluorescence histochemical study of adrenergic nerves, mast cells and patency of cutaneous blood vessels. , 1982, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[21]  J. D. Morrison,et al.  Polyurethane gel liner usage in the Oxford Prosthetic Service , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[22]  Jim Roberts,et al.  Does Socket Configuration Influence the Position of the Femur in Above‐Knee Amputation? , 1989 .

[23]  D. Potvin,et al.  Enabling factors related to prosthetic use by people with transtibial and transfemoral amputation. , 1999, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[24]  H Ogata,et al.  Subjective evaluations and objective measurements of the ischial-ramal containment prosthesis. , 1999, Journal of UOEH.

[25]  W. A. Hubbard,et al.  Establishment of consistent gait after fitting of new components. , 1995, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[26]  R Klotz,et al.  Influence of different types of sockets on the range of motion of the hip joint by the transfemoral amputee. , 2011, Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine.

[27]  E. S. Neumann,et al.  Concepts of Pressure in an Ischial Containment Socket: Measurement , 2005 .

[28]  J. Kärrholm,et al.  Improvements in hip- and pelvic motion for patients with osseointegrated trans-femoral prostheses. , 2009, Gait & posture.

[29]  Noor Azuan Abu Osman,et al.  Satisfaction and problems experienced with transfemoral suspension systems: a comparison between common suction socket and seal-in liner. , 2013, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[30]  S. Kapp Transfemoral socket design and suspension options. , 2000, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

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

[32]  K. Hagberg,et al.  Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: Prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2-year follow-up , 2008, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[33]  S. Levy Skin problems of the leg amputee , 1980, Archives of dermatology.

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

[35]  H. Alaranta,et al.  Primary survival and prosthetic fitting of lower limb amputees , 1989, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[36]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Testing of elastomeric liners used in limb prosthetics: classification of 15 products by mechanical performance. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[37]  Klaas Postema,et al.  A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[38]  J. Sabolich Contoured adducted trochanteric-controlled alignment method (CAT-CAM) ; Introduction and basic principles , 1985 .

[39]  H. Cochrane,et al.  Lower limb amputation Part 3: Prosthetics - a 10 year literature review , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[40]  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.

[41]  C. W. Radcliffe Above-knee prosthetics , 1977 .

[42]  Shawn C Marshall,et al.  Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[43]  E. Mackenzie,et al.  Use and Satisfaction with Prosthetic Devices Among Persons with Trauma-Related Amputations: A Long-Term Outcome Study , 2001, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[44]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines , 1999, BMJ.

[45]  Charles J. Dietzen,et al.  Suction Sock Suspension for Above‐Knee Prostheses , 1991 .

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

[47]  B. Rydevik,et al.  Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[48]  Sam L. Phillips,et al.  Differences in the Spatiotemporal Parameters of Transtibial and Transfemoral Amputee Gait , 2010 .

[49]  S Kakurai,et al.  The TC double socket above-knee prosthesis , 1981, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[50]  L M Bouter,et al.  Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. , 1997, Spine.