Case study: survey of patient satisfaction with prosthesis quality and design among below-knee prosthetic leg socket users

Abstract The aim of this case study was to explore patient satisfaction with the quality of prosthetic leg sockets intended for persons with lower limb amputations. A qualitative study based on in-depth interviews, preceded by a questionnaire session, was carried out with patients from the Rehabilitation Center and Hospital in Malaysia. Twelve out-patient and in-patient amputees with lower limb amputations, specifically below-knee amputations, were chosen randomly. The analysis of patients’ narratives aimed to identify the functional and esthetic characteristics of currently used prosthetic leg sockets and any problems related to them. The obtained results indicated that out of the 12 participants, 41.7% and 25% were satisfied and somewhat satisfied with their current prosthetic sockets. Durability and comfort were rated by the participants as the most important characteristics of prosthetic sockets, with 83.3%. As regards the esthetic appearance of the socket, 66.7% of the respondents considered that the most important feature was the material from which the socket was fabricated. Thus, we conclude that current satisfaction levels with the quality of prosthetic sockets among amputees in Malaysia are suitable, prosthesis being preferred by many amputees. The results can be used to direct future research on cosmesis and functionality of prosthetic socket design. Implications for Rehabilitation Case study will help participants to get cost effective prosthetic leg socket. Develop prosthetic leg socket comfortable as comparative to existing one. Help Malaysian government to make policy to develop local prosthetic leg socket at affordable price.

[1]  See Ching Mey,et al.  Employment of People with Disabilities in Malaysia: Drivers and Inhibitors. , 2011 .

[2]  Keren Fisher,et al.  Prosthetic socket fit comfort score , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[3]  Carolyn E. Horne,et al.  Quality of Life in Patients With Prosthetic Legs: A Comparison Study , 2009 .

[4]  David Alan Boone,et al.  Use of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) , 2006 .

[5]  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.

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

[7]  Andrew Wodehouse,et al.  The aesthetic appeal of prosthetic limbs and the Uncanny Valley: the role of personal characteristics in attraction , 2015 .

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

[9]  G. Yavuzer,et al.  The prosthesis evaluation questionnaire: reliability and cross-validation of the Turkish version , 2015, Journal of physical therapy science.

[10]  Jonathan Corney,et al.  Satisfaction with cosmesis and priorities for cosmesis design reported by lower limb amputees in the United Kingdom: Instrument development and results , 2014, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[11]  Caterina Rizzi,et al.  A new design paradigm for the development of custom-fit soft sockets for lower limb prostheses , 2010, Comput. Ind..

[12]  Gh. Pirouzi,et al.  Review of the Socket Design and Interface Pressure Measurement for Transtibial Prosthesis , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[13]  P. Tahir,et al.  Natural based biocomposite material for prosthetic socket fabrication , 2012 .

[14]  L J Marks,et al.  Science, medicine, and the future: Artificial limbs. , 2001, BMJ.

[15]  W. Lee,et al.  Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb--dynamic effects. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  Zheng Shuxian,et al.  3D reconstruction of the structure of a residual limb for customising the design of a prosthetic socket. , 2005, Medical engineering & physics.