Kahle Jason T, Highsmith M Jason
School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, 3515 East Fletcher Ave, Tampa, FL 33612.
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(9):1241-52. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003.
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of brimless compared with ischial ramus containment (IRC) prosthetic sockets when using vacuum-assisted suspension (VAS) on persons with a unilateral transfemoral amputation (TFA). A randomized crossover design with a 2 d accommodation was used. People with unilateral TFA (n = 9 analyzed) were enrolled. Interventions were IRC VAS and brimless VAS sockets. Main outcome measures included coronal hip angle and vertical and lateral socket movement as measured by X-ray, skin pressure measured by Tekscan, and preference measured subjectively. The brimless design was statistically equivalent to IRC in all measured coronal hip angles and vertical and lateral socket displacement. The peak/stance mean pressure in the medial proximal aspect of the socket was 322 mmHg in the IRC compared with 190 mmHg in the brimless condition. Except for medial proximal pressure, no other measures reached statistical significance. All subjects reported the brimless design to be more comfortable than the IRC in short-term preference. Brimless VAS socket design may be a clinically viable choice for people with TFA.
本研究的目的是调查在单侧大腿截肢(TFA)患者中使用真空辅助悬吊(VAS)时,无边缘假肢接受腔与坐骨支包容(IRC)假肢接受腔相比的效果。采用了具有2天适应期的随机交叉设计。纳入了单侧TFA患者(n = 9,进行分析)。干预措施为IRC VAS和无边缘VAS接受腔。主要结局指标包括通过X射线测量的冠状面髋关节角度、接受腔的垂直和侧向移动,通过Tekscan测量的皮肤压力,以及主观测量的偏好。在所有测量的冠状面髋关节角度以及接受腔的垂直和侧向位移方面,无边缘设计在统计学上与IRC相当。IRC接受腔内侧近端的峰值/站立平均压力为322 mmHg,而无边缘情况下为190 mmHg。除了内侧近端压力外,其他测量指标均未达到统计学显著性。所有受试者在短期偏好方面均报告无边缘设计比IRC更舒适。无边缘VAS接受腔设计对于TFA患者可能是一种临床上可行的选择。