Effect of transfemoral prosthetic socket interface design on gait, balance, mobility, and preference: A randomized clinical trial. Issue 4 (23rd August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kahle, Jason T.; Miro, Rebecca M.; Ho, Loi T.; Porter, Michael R.; Lura, Derek J.; Carey, Stephanie L.; Lunseth, Paul; Swanson, Ann E.; Highsmith, M. Jason
• Is Part Of: Prosthetics and orthotics international. Volume 45:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 304
• Page End: 312
• Publication Date: 2021-08-23
• Subjects: Above the knee amputee -- Artificial limb -- Brimless socket -- Dynamic socket -- Ischial containment -- Prosthesis -- Rehabilitation -- Sub-Ischial; Orthopedic apparatus -- Periodicals; Prosthesis -- Periodicals; Implants, Artificial -- Periodicals; 617.905
• DOI: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0309-3646

Abstract

Abstract : Background: There are alternative transfemoral (TF) socket interface designs that have not been compared with the standard of care, ischial ramus containment (IRC). The interface directly affects performance. Objectives: To compare 3 TF interface designs, IRC, dynamic socket (DS), and subischial (Sub-I), regarding gait, balance, mobility, and preference. The authors hypothesized that these more active users may experience gait, mobility, and preference benefits from the less intrusive DS and Sub-I interface designs. Study Design: Single-blind, repeated-measures, 3-period randomized controlled crossover clinical trial. Methods: People with unilateral TF amputation with 1 year or longer prosthesis use experience, independent community ambulatory status, 18 to 60 years of age, of any race or ethnicity, with a body mass of 45 to 125 kg, and with a self-reported ability to walk for 20 minutes continuously were included in the study. Each participant was fit in all 3 interface designs. Results: Thirteen participants completed the clinical trial. Velocity, cadence, mobility, and balance were not statistically different between the 3 socket conditions. The DS demonstrated significantly greater symmetry in swing, stance, single support percentage, and toe angle compared with IRC and Sub-I. Sixty days after study completion, 7 participants changed interfaces, trending away from IRC. Conclusions: Large differences were not observed. Small differences in spatiotemporal gait measures combined with patient preference may make a meaningful difference to individual patients and should be considered.