Dumbleton Tim, Buis Arjan W P, McFadyen Angus, McHugh Brendan F, McKay Geoff, Murray Kevin D, Sexton Sandra
National Centre for Prosthetics and Orthotics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):405-15.
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.
在本研究中，我们通过压力映射研究并比较了免提和有手操作的经胫假肢系统的动态界面压力分布。在招募的48名确诊单侧截肢者中，一半（n = 24）佩戴压力铸造假肢（IceCast Compact），另一半（n = 24）佩戴髌腱承重设计的手工铸造接受腔。我们借助四个Tekscan F-Scan接受腔换能器阵列测量了每个假肢接受腔内90%以上区域的动态压力分布。我们比较了不同接受腔设计理念下的界面压力。我们发现，两个干预（接受腔处方）组在肢体与接受腔界面处的动态压力分布相似。然而，两种接受腔设计理念在界面压力大小上存在显著差异；免提接受腔记录的界面压力高于有手操作理念的接受腔。尽管界面压力存在差异，但各受试者组对接受腔的满意度相似。本研究中使用的接受腔已日常使用至少6个月，且未出现残肢健康问题。
