Characterization of Prosthetic Liner Products for People with Transtibial Amputation

Introduction Typical practitioners choose from among only two to three products when selecting liners for their patients. A lack of comparable objective information about similarities and differences among elastomeric liner products may be part of the reason. Methods Commonly used, commercially available polyurethane, silicone, and thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) liners were tested for their compressive, shear, tensile, and volumetric elasticities as well as their coefficients of friction (CoFs) and thermal conductivities. Results Polyurethane and silicone liners tended to be stiffer in compression and shear than TPE liners. Fabric backings contributed primarily to increased tensile elasticity (and thus reduced pistoning). Polyurethane liners demonstrated relatively low CoFs, whereas silicone and TPE liners had higher CoFs and wider ranges. All materials tested were essentially incompressible. Thermal conductivities of all materials were comparable and similar to that of leather. Conclusions Polyurethane liners are softer and less sticky than 16 years ago, and TPE liners have higher tensile stiffness than previously. A stiff fabric backing can increase tensile stiffness by more than 200%. Compressive stiffness may be used to characterize a liner’s ability to flow. Elastomeric liners move heat almost exclusively via conduction.

[1]  S G Zachariah,et al.  Changes in interface pressures and shear stresses over time on trans-tibial amputee subjects ambulating with prosthetic limbs: comparison of diurnal and six-month differences. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  Pieter U Dijkstra,et al.  Determinants of skin problems of the stump in lower-limb amputees. , 2009, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  K. Komvopoulos,et al.  In vitro investigation of skin damage due to microscale shearing. , 2014, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[4]  S G Zachariah,et al.  Interface pressure and shear stress changes with amputee weight loss: Case studies from two trans-tibial amputee subjects , 2002, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[5]  S G Zachariah,et al.  Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees. , 2000, Clinical biomechanics.

[6]  William R Ledoux,et al.  The shear mechanical properties of diabetic and non-diabetic plantar soft tissue. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  C H Daly,et al.  Interface pressures and shear stresses: Sagittal plane angular alignment effects in three trans-tibial amputee case studies , 1999, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[8]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Elastomeric liners for people with transtibial amputation: Survey of prosthetists’ clinical practices , 2017, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[9]  Aziz Ahmad PROSTHETIC PROBLEMS OF TRANSTIBIAL AMPUTEE , 2011 .

[10]  Brian L Davis,et al.  Design of a novel prosthetic socket: assessment of the thermal performance. , 2015, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  S. J. Covey,et al.  Flow Constraint and Loading Rate Effects on Prosthetic Liner Material and Human Tissue Mechanical Response , 2000 .

[12]  S. Gard,et al.  Effect of prosthetic gel liner thickness on gait biomechanics and pressure distribution within the transtibial socket. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  L. Bennett,et al.  Shear vs pressure as causative factors in skin blood flow occlusion. , 1979, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Amputee socks: Thickness of multiple socks , 2014, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Development of Standardized Material Testing Protocols for Prosthetic Liners. , 2017, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[16]  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.

[17]  P. Naylor THE SKIN SURFACE AND FRICTION. , 1955, The British journal of dermatology.

[18]  Jan H B Geertzen,et al.  University of Groningen Skin Problems of the Stump in Lower Limb Amputees Meulenbelt, , 2011 .

[19]  J. Geertzen,et al.  Skin problems in lower limb amputees: an overview by case reports , 2007, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[20]  J E Sanders,et al.  Interface pressures and shear stresses at thirteen socket sites on two persons with transtibial amputation. , 1997, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[21]  G K Klute,et al.  The thermal conductivity of prosthetic sockets and liners , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

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

[23]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Amputee socks: how does sock ply relate to sock thickness? , 2012, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[24]  Hossein Gholizadeh,et al.  Clinical investigation of the interface pressure in the trans-tibial socket with Dermo and Seal-In X5 liner during walking and their effect on patient satisfaction. , 2012, Clinical biomechanics.

[25]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Amputee socks: Sock thickness changes with normal use , 2016, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[26]  A. Segal,et al.  Residual limb skin temperature and thermal comfort in people with amputation during activity in a cold environment. , 2016, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[27]  K. Slater,et al.  Comparative analysis of below-knee prosthetic socket liner materials. , 1998, Journal of medical engineering & technology.

[28]  G. Klute,et al.  Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure. , 2016, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.