Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: Ischial containment versus brimless

被引:42
作者
Kahle, Jason T. [1 ]
Highsmith, M. Jason [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ S Florida, Sch Phys Therapy & Rehabil Sci, Tampa, FL 33612 USA
关键词
amputation; biomechanics; fluoroscope; ischial ramus containment; kinematics; prosthetic; suspension; transfemoral socket; vacuum-assisted suspension; X-ray; TRANS-TIBIAL AMPUTEE; ABOVE-KNEE SOCKETS; INTERFACE PRESSURES; RESIDUAL FEMUR; FEMORAL SOCKET; BIOMECHANICS; AMPUTATION; SUCTION; MOTION; LIMB;
D O I
10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of brimless compared with ischial ramus containment (IRC) prosthetic sockets when using vacuum-assisted suspension (VAS) on persons with a unilateral transfemoral amputation (TFA). A randomized crossover design with a 2 d accommodation was used. People with unilateral TFA (n = 9 analyzed) were enrolled. Interventions were IRC VAS and brimless VAS sockets. Main outcome measures included coronal hip angle and vertical and lateral socket movement as measured by X-ray, skin pressure measured by Tekscan, and preference measured subjectively. The brimless design was statistically equivalent to IRC in all measured coronal hip angles and vertical and lateral socket displacement. The peak/stance mean pressure in the medial proximal aspect of the socket was 322 mmHg in the IRC compared with 190 mmHg in the brimless condition. Except for medial proximal pressure, no other measures reached statistical significance. All subjects reported the brimless design to be more comfortable than the IRC in short-term preference. Brimless VAS socket design may be a clinically viable choice for people with TFA.
引用
收藏
页码:1241 / 1251
页数:11
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2004, PROSTH 621 TRANSF PR
[2]   Comparison of interface pressures with pin and suction suspension systems [J].
Beil, TL ;
Street, GM .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 2004, 41 (6A) :821-828
[3]  
Beil TL, 2002, J REHABIL RES DEV, V39, P693
[4]  
BENNETT L, 1979, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V60, P309
[5]   A comparison of trans-tibial amputee suction and vacuum socket conditions [J].
Board, WJ ;
Street, GM ;
Caspers, C .
PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 25 (03) :202-209
[6]  
Bowker J.H., 2002, Atlas of Limb Prosthetics: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles, V3rd
[7]   Ultrasound study of the motion of the residual femur within a trans-femoral socket during daily living activities other than gait [J].
Convery, P ;
Murray, KD .
PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 25 (03) :220-227
[8]   Ultrasound study of the motion of the residual femur within a trans-femoral socket during gait [J].
Convery, P ;
Murray, KD .
PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL, 2000, 24 (03) :226-232
[9]  
FLANDRY F, 1989, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P249
[10]   The Amputee Mobility Predictor: An instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate [J].
Gailey, RS ;
Roach, KE ;
Applegate, EB ;
Cho, B ;
Cunniffe, B ;
Licht, S ;
Maguire, M ;
Nash, MS .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2002, 83 (05) :613-627