The development and internal consistency of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey in active lower limb amputees

Background: Prosthetic socket fit is an important element associated with successful ambulation and use of a prosthesis. Prosthetists and rehabilitation clinicians would benefit from an assessment tool that discriminates between and quantifies the multiple determinants that influence the lower limb amputee’s performance and satisfaction of a prosthetic socket. Objectives: To determine the internal consistency of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey, a new self-report measure of prosthetic socket satisfaction that quantifies suspension, stability, comfort, and appearance. Study design: Cross-sectional sample of active amputees. Methods: Interviews were conducted with prosthetists, physical therapists, and lower limb amputees to identify clinical concerns and common activities influencing socket fit. An expert panel of five clinicians reviewed the items and constructed the original version of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey which was then administered to a convenience sample of 47 active lower limb amputees. Item analysis and Cronbach’s alpha were used to determine the final version of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey. Results: Following item raw score-to-total score correlation with Cronbach’s alpha for comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey determinants, internal consistency improved when nine questions were eliminated. Conclusion: The comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey is a self-report measure of prosthetic socket satisfaction with very good internal consistency. Clinical relevance When socket problems occur, the ability to determine the specific cause can reduce modification time, enhance socket fit, and promote patient satisfaction. A standardized multi-dimensional assessment measure of socket satisfaction enables prosthetists to quantify the multiple determinants of socket satisfaction, improve patient communication, and demonstrate the value of socket interventions.

[1]  Z. Svoboda,et al.  Limits of stability in persons with transtibial amputation with respect to prosthetic alignment alterations. , 2013, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  M. Maclachlan,et al.  The Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales and quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  Thomas Schmalz,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of stair ambulation in lower limb amputees. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[4]  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.

[5]  M. Legro,et al.  Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. , 1999, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[6]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Recreational activities of lower-limb amputees with prostheses. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[7]  Brian J Hafner,et al.  Psychometric evaluation of self-report outcome measures for prosthetic applications. , 2016, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  A F Mak,et al.  State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: a review. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[9]  S. Izumi,et al.  Muscle Activity and Postural Control during Standing of Healthy Adults Wearing a Simulated Trans-Femoral Prosthesis , 2010 .

[10]  L. Paul,et al.  The impact of gender, level of amputation and diabetes on prosthetic fit rates following major lower extremity amputation , 2016, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[11]  H Gholizadeh,et al.  Transtibial prosthesis suspension systems: systematic review of literature. , 2014, Clinical biomechanics.

[12]  Stefania Fatone,et al.  Coronal plane socket stability during gait in persons with transfemoral amputation: Pilot study. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  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.

[14]  Ming Zhang,et al.  Pressure distribution at the stump/socket interface in transtibial amputees during walking on stairs, slope and non-flat road. , 2006, Clinical Biomechanics.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  Daniel C Norvell,et al.  Prosthetic fitting, use, and satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: a prospective study. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[18]  Noor Azuan Abu Osman,et al.  Transtibial prosthetic suspension: less pistoning versus easy donning and doffing. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[19]  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.

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

[21]  A. Eshraghi,et al.  Pistoning assessment in lower limb prosthetic sockets , 2012, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[22]  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.

[23]  L. Göeken,et al.  Factors related to successful job reintegration of people with a lower limb amputation. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[25]  Martin Twiste,et al.  The effects of prosthetic ankle stiffness on stability of gait in people with transtibial amputation. , 2016, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[26]  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.

[27]  Christopher Kevin Wong,et al.  Role of balance ability and confidence in prosthetic use for mobility of people with lower-limb loss. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[28]  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 .

[29]  Tracy L Beil,et al.  Comparison of interface pressures with pin and suction suspension systems. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[30]  F A Matsen,et al.  Correlations with Patients' Perspectives of the Result of Lower-Extremity Amputation* , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  Noor Azuan Abu Osman,et al.  Transfemoral Prosthesis Suspension Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2014, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[32]  S. Anderssen,et al.  Accelerometer-determined physical activity in adults and older people. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[33]  J Perry,et al.  Stair ambulation in persons with transtibial amputation: an analysis of the Seattle LightFoot. , 1997, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[34]  M Jason Highsmith,et al.  Transfemoral interfaces with vacuum assisted suspension comparison of gait, balance, and subjective analysis: ischial containment versus brimless. , 2014, Gait & posture.

[35]  Z. Svoboda,et al.  Assessment of postural stability in patients with a transtibial amputation with various times of prosthesis use , 2009 .

[36]  Ellen J Mackenzie,et al.  Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[37]  Joan E Sanders,et al.  Residual limb volume change: systematic review of measurement and management. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[38]  Thomas Findley,et al.  Measures of postural stability. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.