Transfemoral interfaces with vacuum assisted suspension comparison of gait, balance, and subjective analysis: ischial containment versus brimless.

OBJECTIVE Investigate the effect of a brimless interface design compared with ischial ramus containment (IRC) of interfaces when using vacuum-assisted suspension (VAS) on transfemoral amputees (TFAs). DESIGN Randomized experimental crossover. SETTING Household, community, and clinic. PARTICIPANTS Unilateral TFAs (N=12 enrolled, N=10 analyzed). Mean age: 42.9 years. Mean residual limb length: 60.3% of the sound side femur length. Participants' mean time as an amputee: 8.3 years and median AMP score: 43. INTERVENTIONS (1) IRC VAS interface, and (2) brimless VAS interface. Average medial wall height for IRC interfaces was 0.7cm proximal to the distal-most aspect of the ischial tuberosity (IT). The medial wall on the brimless design was an average of 3.3cm distal to the distal-most aspect of the IT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Spatiotemporal gait parameters, limits of stability, four square step test, and subjective perception using the prosthetic evaluation questionnaire (PEQ). RESULTS Step length was significantly improved towards the IRC (p=0.04), when calculating degree of asymmetry. Base of support was significantly narrowed toward the brimless (p=0.03). All subjective measures reached statistical significance in favor of improvement with the brimless design, compared to the IRC. CONCLUSIONS The brimless design was equivalent to IRC in most gait and balance outcome measures. However, step length was more symmetrical toward the IRC while base of support was narrowed toward the brimless demonstrating mixed inconsistent performance changes. Further, the PEQ demonstrated significant subjective improvements in prosthetic related function and quality of life when participants used the brimless design. Brimless interface design may be a clinically viable choice.

[1]  M Jason Highsmith,et al.  Clarification of content , 2011, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

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

[3]  Pramod Kumar Pal,et al.  Dynamic posturography in evaluation of balance in patients of Parkinson's disease with normal pull test: concept of a diagonal pull test. , 2010, Parkinsonism & related disorders.

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

[5]  Bijan Forogh,et al.  Dynamic stability training improves standing balance control in neuropathic patients with type 2 diabetes. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

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

[7]  M. Batavia,et al.  The validity and reliability of the GAITRite system's measurements: A preliminary evaluation. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  R. Harter,et al.  Validity and reliability of limits-of-stability testing: a comparison of 2 postural stability evaluation devices. , 2011, Journal of athletic training.

[9]  M. Nash,et al.  The Amputee Mobility Predictor: An instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's abi , 2002 .

[10]  M Jason Highsmith,et al.  Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: ischial containment versus brimless. , 2013, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[11]  R B Chambers,et al.  The effect of the CAT-CAM above-knee prosthesis on functional rehabilitation. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

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

[13]  M. Morris,et al.  Concurrent related validity of the GAITRite walkway system for quantification of the spatial and temporal parameters of gait. , 2003, Gait & posture.

[14]  W D Spence,et al.  Stump-socket interface pressure as an aid to socket design in prostheses for trans-femoral amputees—a preliminary study , 1997, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[15]  R G Redhead,et al.  Total surface bearing self suspending above-knee sockets∗ , 1979, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[16]  Wayne Dite,et al.  Clinical identification of multiple fall risk early after unilateral transtibial amputation. , 2007, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[17]  L. Resnik,et al.  Reliability of Outcome Measures for People With Lower-Limb Amputations: Distinguishing True Change From Statistical Error , 2011, Physical Therapy.

[18]  T A Krouskop,et al.  Interface pressures in above-knee sockets. , 1987, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[20]  M Jason Highsmith,et al.  Safety, Energy Efficiency, and Cost Efficacy of the C-Leg for Transfemoral Amputees: A Review of the Literature , 2010, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[21]  Zoran Popovic,et al.  Vacuum-assisted socket suspension compared with pin suspension for lower extremity amputees: effect on fit, activity, and limb volume. , 2011, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[22]  Pascale Fodé,et al.  Three-dimensional motions of trunk and pelvis during transfemoral amputee gait. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  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.

[24]  Jason T. Kahle,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF VACUUM-ASSISTED SUSPENSION ON RESIDUAL LIMB PHYSIOLOGY, WOUND HEALING, AND FUNCTION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW , 2014 .

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

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

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

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