Dynamic interface pressure distributions of two transtibial prosthetic socket concepts.

In this study, we investigated and compared the dynamic interface pressure distribution of hands-off and hands-on transtibial prosthetic systems by means of pressure mapping. Of the 48 established unilateral amputees recruited, half (n = 24) had been wearing pressure-cast prostheses (IceCast Compact) and the other half (n = 24) had been wearing hand-cast sockets of the patellar tendon bearing design. We measured the dynamic pressure profile of more than 90% of the area within each prosthetic socket by means of four Tekscan F-Scan socket transducer arrays. We compared the interface pressure between socket concepts. We found that the distribution of dynamic pressure at the limb-socket interface was similar for the two intervention (socket prescription) groups. However, a significant difference was found in the magnitude of the interface pressure between the two socket concepts; the interface pressures recorded in the hands-off sockets were higher than those seen in the hands-on concept. Despite the differences in interface pressure, the level of satisfaction with the sockets was similar between subject groups. The sockets instrumented for this study had been in daily use for at least 6 months, with no residual-limb health problems.

[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]  P Sewell,et al.  Developments in the transtibial prosthetic socket fitting process: A review of past and present research , 2000, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[3]  C W RADCLIFFE.  The biomechanics of below-knee prostheses in normal, level, bipedal walking. , 1962, Artificial limbs.

[4]  J. Sanders,et al.  Effects of Fluid Insert Volume Changes on Socket Pressures and Shear Stresses: Case Studies from two Trans-Tibial Amputee Subjects , 2006, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[5]  D. Fish,et al.  Clinical Assessment of Human Gait , 1993 .

[6]  C. C. Nielsen,et al.  Factors Affecting the Use of Prosthetic Services , 1989 .

[7]  J. E. Sanders,et al.  Standing interface stresses as a predictor of walking interface stresses in the trans-tibial prosthesis , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[8]  Great Britain. Foreign Office.,et al.  Department of Health and Social Security (Social Security) , 1971 .

[9]  A W Buis,et al.  Calibration problems encountered while monitoring stump/socket interface pressures with force sensing resistors: Techniques adopted to minimise inaccuracies , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[10]  P V S Lee,et al.  Stump/socket pressure profiles of the pressure cast prosthetic socket. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[11]  H. Chadderton.  Prostheses, pain and sequelae of amputation, as seen by the amputee∗ , 1978, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

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

[13]  P V S Lee,et al.  Static and dynamic pressure profiles of a patellar-tendon-bearing (PTB) socket , 2003, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[14]  A W Buis,et al.  Conventional patellar-tendon-bearing (PTB) socket/stump interface dynamic pressure distributions recorded during the prosthetic stance phase of gait of a transtibial amputee , 1998, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  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.

[16]  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.

[17]  D G Smith,et al.  Socket considerations for the patient with a transtibial amputation. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  A W Buis,et al.  Socket/stump interface dynamic pressure distributions recorded during the prosthetic stance phase of gait of a trans-tibial amputee wearing a hydrocast socket , 1999, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[19]  James Cho Hong Goh,et al.  Comparative study between patellar-tendon-bearing and pressure cast prosthetic sockets. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[20]  M. Greenwood.  An Introduction to Medical Statistics , 1932, Nature.

[21]  W. Kim,et al.  An evaluation of the effectiveness of the patellar tendon bar in the trans-tibial patellar-tendon-bearing prosthesis socket , 2003, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[22]  A A Polliack,et al.  Scientific validation of two commercial pressure sensor systems for prosthetic socket fit , 2000, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[23]  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.