Department of Veterans Affairs Center of Excellence for Limb Loss Prevention and Prosthetic Engineering, Seattle, WA, USA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Oct;92(10):1570-5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.05.019.
To investigate the effect of a vacuum-assisted socket suspension system as compared with pin suspension on lower extremity amputees.
Randomized crossover with 3-week acclimation.
Household, community, and laboratory environments.
Unilateral, transtibial amputees (N=20 enrolled, N=5 completed).
(1) Total surface-bearing socket with a vacuum-assisted suspension system (VASS), and (2) modified patellar tendon-bearing socket with a pin lock suspension system.
Activity level, residual limb volume before and after a 30-minute treadmill walk, residual limb pistoning, and Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire.
Activity levels were significantly lower while wearing the vacuum-assisted socket suspension system than the pin suspension (P=.0056; 38,000 ± 9,000 steps per 2 wk vs 73,000 ± 18,000 steps per 2 wk, respectively). Residual limb pistoning was significantly less while wearing the vacuum-assisted socket suspension system than the pin suspension (P=.0021; 1 ± 3mm vs 6 ± 4mm, respectively). Treadmill walking had no effect on residual limb volume. In general, participants ranked their residual limb health higher, were less frustrated, and claimed it was easier to ambulate while wearing a pin suspension compared with the VASS.
The VASS resulted in a better fitting socket as measured by limb movement relative to the prosthetic socket (pistoning), although the clinical relevance of the small but statistically significant difference is difficult to discern. Treadmill walking had no effect, suggesting that a skilled prosthetist can control for daily limb volume fluctuations by using conventional, nonvacuum systems. Participants took approximately half as many steps while wearing the VASS which, when coupled with their subjective responses, suggests a preference for the pin suspension system.
研究真空辅助式接受腔悬吊系统与针悬吊系统对下肢截肢者的影响。
3 周适应期的随机交叉研究。
家庭、社区和实验室环境。
单侧、胫骨截肢者(20 名参与者入选,5 名完成)。
(1)带有真空辅助悬吊系统的全表面承重接受腔,和(2)带有针锁悬吊系统的改良髌韧带承重接受腔。
活动水平、跑步机行走 30 分钟前后残肢体积、残肢活塞运动和假肢评估问卷。
佩戴真空辅助式接受腔悬吊系统时的活动水平明显低于佩戴针悬吊系统时(P=.0056;佩戴真空辅助式接受腔悬吊系统时,每 2 周分别为 38000±9000 步和 73000±18000 步)。佩戴真空辅助式接受腔悬吊系统时残肢活塞运动明显小于佩戴针悬吊系统时(P=.0021;分别为 1±3mm 和 6±4mm)。跑步机行走对残肢体积没有影响。总的来说,与佩戴 VASS 相比,参与者佩戴针悬吊系统时对残肢健康的评价更高,沮丧感更低,且声称更容易行走。
VASS 导致假肢套筒相对于肢体运动(活塞运动)的适配性更好,尽管统计学上存在显著差异,但很难察觉其临床相关性。跑步机行走没有影响,这表明经验丰富的假肢技师可以通过使用传统的非真空系统来控制日常的肢体体积波动。佩戴 VASS 时,参与者的步数减少了大约一半,再加上他们的主观反应,这表明他们更喜欢针悬吊系统。