Evaluation of new suspension system for limb prosthetics

BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Hossein Gholizadeh¹  Noor Azuan Abu Osman¹  Arezoo Eshraghi¹  Sadeeq Ali¹  Nooranida Arifin¹  Wan Abu Bakar Wan Abas¹ 

[1] Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

关键词: Amputees;    Prosthetic socket;    Below-knee prosthesis;    Lower limb prosthesis;    Prosthetic suspension;    Prosthetic liner;    Transtibial prostheses;   

Others  :  797229
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-925X-13-1

 received in 2013-11-14, accepted in 2013-12-16,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Good prosthetic suspension system secures the residual limb inside the prosthetic socket and enables easy donning and doffing. This study aimed to introduce, evaluate and compare a newly designed prosthetic suspension system (HOLO) with the current suspension systems (suction, pin/lock and magnetic systems).

Methods

All the suspension systems were tested (tensile testing machine) in terms of the degree of the shear strength and the patient’s comfort. Nine transtibial amputees participated in this study. The patients were asked to use four different suspension systems. Afterwards, each participant completed a questionnaire for each system to evaluate their comfort. Furthermore, the systems were compared in terms of the cost.

Results

The maximum tensile load that the new system could bear was 490 N (SD, 5.5) before the system failed. Pin/lock, magnetic and suction suspension systems could tolerate loads of580 N (SD, 8.5), 350.9 (SD, 7) and 310 N (SD, 8.4), respectively. Our subjects were satisfied with the new hook and loop system, particularly in terms of easy donning and doffing. Furthermore, the new system is considerably cheaper (35 times) than the current locking systems in the market.

Conclusions

The new suspension system could successfully retain the prosthesis on the residual limb as a good alternative for lower limb amputees. In addition, the new system addresses some problems of the existing systems and is more cost effective than its counterparts.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gholizadeh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R: Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008, 89(3):422-429.
• [2]Ali S, Abu Osman NA, Naqshbandi M, Eshraghi A, Kamyab M, Gholizadeh H: Qualitative study of prosthetic suspension systems on individuals with transtibial Amputation’s satisfaction and perceived problems with their prosthetic devices. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 93:1919-1923.
• [3]Baars E, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen J: Skin problems of the stump and hand function in lower limb amputees: A historic cohort study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2008, 32(2):179-185.
• [4]Baars E, Geertzen J: Literature review of the possible advantages of silicon liner socket use in trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005, 29(1):27-37.
• [5]Cluitmans J, Geboers M, Deckers J, Rings F: Experiences with respect to the ICEROSS system for trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 1994, 18(2):78-83.
• [6]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Sævarsson SK, Wan Abas WA, Pirouzi GH: Transtibial prosthetic suspension: Less pistoning versus easy donning and doffing. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012, 49(9):1321-1330.
• [7]Klute GK, Berge JS, Biggs W, Pongnumkul S, Popovic Z, Curless B: Vacuum-assisted socket suspension compared with pin suspension for lower extremity amputees: effect on fit, activity, and limb volume. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011, 92(10):1570-1575.
• [8]Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Karimi M, Ali S: Pistoning assessment in lower limb prosthetic sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int 2012, 36(1):15-24.
• [9]Kristinsson Ö: The ICEROSS concept: a discussion of a philosophy. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993, 17(1):49-55.
• [10]Van De Weg F, Van Der W: A questionnaire survey of the effect of different interface types on patient satisfaction and perceived problems among trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005, 29(3):231-239.
• [11]Wirta RW, Golbranson FL, Mason R, Calvo K: Analysis of below-knee suspension systems: effect on gait. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990, 27(4):385-396.
• [12]Trieb K, Lang T, Stulnig T, Kickinger W: Silicone soft socket system: Its effect on the rehabilitation of geriatric patients with transfemoral amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999, 80(5):522-525.
• [13]Beil TL, Street GM, Covey SJ: Interface pressures during ambulation using suction and vacuum-assisted prosthetic sockets. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002, 39(6):693-700.
• [14]Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Ahmadian J, Rahmati B, Wan AWAB: Development and evaluation of new coupling system for lower limb prostheses with acoustic alarm system. Sci Repdoi:10.1038/srep02270(2013)
• [15]Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Karimi MT, Gholizadeh H, Ali S, Wan Abas WAB: Quantitative and qualitative comparison of a New prosthetic suspension system with Two existing suspension systems for lower limb amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 91(12):1028-1038.
• [16]Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Ali S, Sævarsson SK, Wan Abas WAB: An experimental study of the interface pressure profile during level walking of a new suspension system for lower limb amputees. Clin Biomech 2013, 28(1):55-60.
• [17]Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim P, Rossbach P: Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004, 85(5):723-729.
• [18]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Wan Abas WAB, Azam M: Transtibial prosthetic socket pistoning: Static evaluation of Seal-In X5 and Dermo Liner using motion analysis system. Clin Biomech 2012, 27(1):34-39.
• [19]Beil TL, Street GM: Comparison of interface pressures with pin and suction suspension systems. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004, 41(6A):821-828.
• [20]Street G: Vacuum suspension and its effects on the limb. Orthopadie Technik 2006, 4:1-7.
• [21]Burnes AS, McCormack AL: Compressively resilient loop structure for hook and loop fastener systems. U.S. Patents 1998. No. 5,707,707
• [22]Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, Del AM, Larsen J, Boone D: Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998, 79(8):931-938.
• [23]Hermodsson Y, Persson BM: Cost of prostheses in patients with unilateral transtibial amputation for vascular disease: A population-based follow-up during 8 years of 112 patients. Acta Orthop 1998, 69(6):603-607.
• [24]Perry J, Davids JR: Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. J Pediatr Orthop 1992, 12(6):815.
• [25]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Yahyavi ES: Satisfaction and problems experienced with transfemoral suspension systems: a comparison between common suction socket and Seal-In liner. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 94(8):1584-1589.
• [26]Gauthier Gagnon C, Grise MC: Prosthetic profile of the amputee questionnaire: validity and reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994, 75(12):1309-1314.