Clinical implication of interface pressure for a new prosthetic suspension system

BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Hossein Gholizadeh¹  Noor Azuan Abu Osman¹  Arezoo Eshraghi¹  Nasrul Anuar Abd Razak¹ 

[1] Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

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

Others  :  1084784
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-925X-13-89

 received in 2014-05-19, accepted in 2014-06-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Prosthesis suspension systems can alter the distribution of pressure within the prosthetic socket. This study evaluates a new suspension system for lower limb prostheses, and aims to compare the interface pressure and amputees’ satisfaction with the new system compared with a common prosthetic suspension system (pin/lock).

Methods

Ten transtibial amputees walked at a self-selected speed on a level ground with two different suspension systems, namely the pin/lock and HOLO system. The interface pressure was measured using the F-socket transducers at the proximal, middle and distal sites of residual limb. Furthermore, subjective feedback was logged to compare two systems.

Results

The pressure was significantly higher at the proximal and distal areas with the pin/lock suspension system during the swing phase of gait (P < 0.05). Subjective feedback also showed traction at the stump with the pin/lock system. There were no significant differences in the pressure applied to the mid-anterior and mid posterior stump for both suspension systems. However, the lateral and medial sides exhibited higher pressure with the new system during stance phase.

Conclusions

The intention of this study was to deepen understanding on the effect of suspension system on the load distribution over the residual limb. The new coupling system was proved compatible with the pin/lock system in terms of suspending the leg and amputee’s satisfaction. On the other hand, the HOLO system could distribute the pressure more uniformly over the residual limb.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gholizadeh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]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.
• [2]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.
• [3]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.
• [4]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.
• [5]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.
• [6]Kristinsson Ö: The ICEROSS concept: a discussion of a philosophy. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993, 17(1):49-55.
• [7]Van de Weg F, Van der Windt DA: 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.
• [8]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.
• [9]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Razak NA: Transtibial prosthesis suspension systems: systematic review of literature. Clin Biomech 2014, 29(1):87-97.
• [10]Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Ahmadian J, Rahmati B, Wan Abas WAB: Development and evaluation of new coupling system for lower limb prostheses with acoustic alarm system. Sci Rep 2013. doi:10.1038/srep02270
• [11]Beil TL, Street GM: Comparison of interface pressures with pin and suction suspension systems. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004, 41(6A):821-828.
• [12]Street G: Vacuum suspension and its effects on the limb. Orthopadie Technik 2006, 4:1-7.
• [13]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.
• [14]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.
• [15]Mak AF, Zhang M, Boone DA: State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001, 38(2):161-173.
• [16]Sanders JE, Bell DM, Okumura RM, Dralle AJ: Effects of alignment changes on stance phase pressures and shear stresses on transtibial amputees: measurements from 13 transducer sites. Rehabil Eng, IEEE Transact On 1998, 6(1):21-31.
• [17]Wolf SI, Alimusaj M, Fradet L, Siegel J, Braatz F: Pressure characteristics at the stump/socket interface in transtibial amputees using an adaptive prosthetic foot. Clin Biomech 2009, 24(10):860-865.
• [18]Jia X, Zhang M, Lee WC: Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb—dynamic effects. J Biomech 2004, 37(9):1371-1377.
• [19]Laing S, Lee PV, Goh JC: Engineering a trans-tibial prosthetic socket for the lower limb amputee. Ann Acad Med-Singapore 2011, 40(5):252.
• [20]Dumbleton T, Buis AW, McFadyen A, McHugh BF, McKay G, Murray KD, Sexton S: Dynamic interface pressure distributions of two transtibial prosthetic socket concepts. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009, 46(3):405-415.
• [21]Lin CC, Chang CH, Wu CL, Chung KC, Liao I: Effects of liner stiffness for trans-tibial prosthesis: a finite element contact model. Med Eng Phys 2004, 26(1):1-9.
• [22]Commean PK, Smith KE, Vannier MW, Szabo BA, Actis RL: Finite element modeling and experimental verification of lower extremity shape change under load. J Biomech 1997, 30(5):531-536.
• [23]Silver-Thorn MB, Childress DS: Parametric analysis using the finite element method to investigate prosthetic interface stresses for persons with trans-tibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev 1996, 33:227-238.
• [24]Convery P, Buis A: Socket/stump interface dynamic pressure distributions recorded during the prosthetic stance phase of gait of a trans-tibial amputee wearing a hydrocast socket. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999, 23(2):107-112.
• [25]Zhang M, Turner-Smith AR, Tanner A, Roberts VC: Clinical investigation of the pressure and shear stress on the trans-tibial stump with a prosthesis. Med Eng Phys 1998, 20(3):188-198.
• [26]Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, Chardon JP: Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005, 86(4):659-663.
• [27]Ali S, Abu Osman NA, Mortaza N, Eshraghi A, Gholizadeh H, Wan Abas WAB: Clinical investigation of the interface pressure in the trans-tibial socket with Dermo and Seal-In X5 liner during walking and their effect on patient satisfaction. Clin Biomech 2012, 27(9):943-948.
• [28]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Arifin N, Abas WAW: Evaluation of new suspension system for limb prosthetics. Biomed Eng Online 2014, 13(1):1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Staats TB, Lundt J: The UCLA total surface bearing suction below-knee prosthesis. Clin Prosthet Orthot 1987, 11(3):118-130.
• [30]Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, 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.
• [31]American Academy of Orthotists & Prosthetists: Medicare. PSC044: Medicare guideline forms: K-level determination. http://www.oandp.org/olc/course_extended_content.asp?frmCourseId=ACA066EC-443A-4822-822C-89BC1CBD684E&frmTermId=k-levels webcite Accessed November 8, 2011
• [32]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Lúvíksdóttir ÁG, Abas WAW: Clinical evaluation of two prosthetic suspension systems in a bilateral transtibial amputee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 91(10):894-898.
• [33]Abu Osman NA, Spence WD, Solomonidis SE, Paul JP, Weir AM: The patellar tendon bar! Is it a necessary feature? Med Eng Phys 2010, 32(7):760-765.
• [34]Özçakar L, Kömürcü E, Safaz İ, Göktepe AS, YazicioĞLU K: Evaluation of the patellar tendon in transtibial amputees: a preliminary sonographic study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2009, 33(4):324-328.
• [35]Sanders JE, Lain D, Dralle AJ, Okumura R: Interface pressures and shear stresses at thirteen socket sites on two persons with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev 1997, 34:19-43.
• [36]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.
• [37]Sanders JE, Zachariah SG, Baker AB, Greve JM, Clinton C: Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees. Clin Biomech 2000, 15(9):684-694.