Quantification of prosthetic outcomes: elastomeric gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspension.

For this randomized crossover trial, we compared two common transtibial socket suspension systems: the Alpha liner with distal locking pin and the Pe-Lite liner with neoprene suspension sleeve. Our original hypotheses asserted that increased ambulatory activity, wear time, comfort, and satisfaction would be found with the elastomeric suspension system. Thirteen subjects completed the study. Following 2.5-month accommodation to each condition, ambulatory activity was recorded (steps/minute for 2 weeks), and subjects completed three questionnaires specific to prosthesis use and pain: the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), a Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) excerpt, and the Socket Comfort Score (SCS). Upon completion, subjects selected their favored system for continued use. Ten subjects preferred the Pe-Lite and three the Alpha. Subjects spent 82% more time wearing the Pe-Lite and took 83% more steps per day. Ambulatory intensity distribution did not differ between systems. No statistically significant differences were found in questionnaire results. Subject feedback for each system was both positive and negative.

[1]  H. Ogata,et al.  Total surface bearing below-knee prosthesis: advantages, disadvantages, and clinical implications. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  Terry J. Supan,et al.  The Incidence of Dermatological Problems in the Silicone Suspension Sleeve User , 1997 .

[3]  D Datta,et al.  Outcome of fitting an ICEROSS prosthesis: Views of trans-tibial amputees , 1996, 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]  C. Cleeland,et al.  Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. , 1994, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[6]  D A Boone,et al.  Automated fabrication of mobility aids: review of the AFMA process and VA/Seattle ShapeMaker software design. , 1994, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  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.

[10]  J. Bowker,et al.  Atlas of Limb Prosthetics: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles , 1992 .

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

[12]  W. Eisma,et al.  Silicone Suction Socket (3s) Versus Supracondylar Ptb Prosthesis with Pelite Liner: Transtibial Amputees' Preferences , 1996 .

[13]  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.

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

[15]  Koichi Shinkoda,et al.  Hygiene problems of residual limb and silicone liners in transtibial amputees wearing the total surface bearing socket. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[16]  A K Dasgupta,et al.  The performance of the ICEROSS prostheses amongst transtibial amputees with a special reference to the workplace--a preliminary study. Icelandic Roll on Silicone Socket. , 1997, Occupational medicine.

[17]  D A Boone,et al.  Step activity monitor: long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function. , 1999, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.