Gholizadeh Hossein, Abu Osman Noor Azuan, Eshraghi Arezoo, Ali Sadeeq
From the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Sep;93(9):809-23. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000094.
The purpose of this study was to find the scientific evidence pertaining to various transfemoral suspension systems to provide selection criteria for clinicians. To this end, databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were explored. The following key words, as well as their combinations and synonyms, were used for the search: transfemoral prosthesis, prosthetic suspension, lower limb prosthesis, above-knee prosthesis, prosthetic liner, transfemoral, and prosthetic socket. The study design, research instrument, sampling method, outcome measures, and protocols of articles were reviewed. On the basis of the selection criteria, 16 articles (11 prospective studies and 5 surveys) were reviewed. The main causes of reluctance to prosthesis, aside from energy expenditure, were socket-related problems such as discomfort, perspiration, and skin problems. Osseointegration was a suspension option, yet it is rarely applied because of several drawbacks, such as extended rehabilitation process, risk for fracture, and infection along with excessive cost. In conclusion, no clinical evidence was found as a "standard" system of suspension and socket design for all transfemoral amputees. However, among various suspension systems for transfemoral amputees, the soft insert or double socket was favored by most users in terms of function and comfort.
本研究的目的是寻找与各种经股悬吊系统相关的科学证据，为临床医生提供选择标准。为此，对PubMed、科学网和ScienceDirect数据库进行了检索。检索使用了以下关键词及其组合和同义词：经股假肢、假肢悬吊、下肢假肢、膝上假肢、假肢内衬、经股以及假肢接受腔。对文章的研究设计、研究工具、抽样方法、结果测量和方案进行了审查。根据选择标准，对16篇文章（11篇前瞻性研究和5篇调查）进行了审查。除能量消耗外，不愿佩戴假肢的主要原因是与接受腔相关的问题，如不适、出汗和皮肤问题。骨整合是一种悬吊选择，但由于存在一些缺点，如康复过程延长、骨折风险、感染以及成本过高，很少应用。总之，未找到作为所有经股截肢者悬吊和接受腔设计“标准”系统的临床证据。然而，在各种经股截肢者悬吊系统中，软衬垫或双接受腔在功能和舒适度方面最受大多数使用者青睐。
