Kahle Jason, Miro Rebecca Maria, Ho Loi T, Porter Michael, Lura Derek J, Carey Stephanie L, Lunseth Paul, Highsmith James, Highsmith M Jason
OP Solutions, Tampa, FL, USA.
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020 Jun;44(3):145-154. doi: 10.1177/0309364620913459. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
The most crucial aspect of a prosthesis is the socket, as it will directly determine gait stability and quality. The current standard of care ischial ramus containment socket is reported to increase coronal stability through gait; however, socket discomfort is the primary complaint among prosthetic users.
The purpose of this study is to compare ischial ramus containment to alternatives in the transfemoral amputee population. All subjects were fit with three different sockets: traditional ischial ramus containment, a dynamic socket, and a sub-ischial. In this study, authors hypothesized socket skeletal motion would be equivalent across interventions.
Single-blind, repeated-measures, three-period randomized crossover clinical trial.
Outcome measures were socket comfort score and skeletal motion, viewed coronally with X-ray measuring the position of the skeleton in relationship to the socket in full weight-bearing and full un-loading.
The mean age was 38.2 and mean Amputee Mobility Predictor score was 40. Mean vertical movement, horizontal movement, single limb prosthetic stance, mean femoral adduction in swing and stance, and median socket comfort score were not statistically different.
The socket design did not significantly effect skeletal motion and socket comfort. All socket designs are suitable depending on the patient-centric preferences and prosthetist skill set.
The comfort of the standard of care transfemoral amputation socket has been widely reported as problematic. A comparison of alternative designs in a controlled clinical trial environment will assist the clinician in understanding the impact of design regarding skeletal motion and comfort. Users could benefit from alternatives applied in clinical practice.
假肢最关键的部分是接受腔,因为它将直接决定步态的稳定性和质量。据报道,目前的护理标准——坐骨支包容式接受腔可通过步态提高冠状面稳定性;然而,接受腔不适是假肢使用者的主要抱怨。
本研究旨在比较经股骨截肢人群中坐骨支包容式接受腔与其他类型接受腔。所有受试者均适配三种不同的接受腔:传统的坐骨支包容式接受腔、动态接受腔和坐骨下接受腔。在本研究中,作者假设不同干预措施下接受腔的骨骼运动情况是等效的。
单盲、重复测量、三阶段随机交叉临床试验。
观察指标为接受腔舒适度评分和骨骼运动情况,通过X线在冠状面观察,测量全负重和全卸载状态下骨骼相对于接受腔的位置。
平均年龄为38.2岁,平均截肢者运动预测评分40分。平均垂直运动、水平运动、单腿假肢站立、摆动期和站立期平均股骨内收以及接受腔舒适度评分中位数在统计学上无显著差异。
接受腔设计对骨骼运动和接受腔舒适度无显著影响。所有接受腔设计都合适,具体取决于以患者为中心的偏好和假肢师的技能水平。
护理标准的经股骨截肢接受腔的舒适度一直被广泛报道存在问题。在对照临床试验环境中对不同设计进行比较,将有助于临床医生了解设计对骨骼运动和舒适度的影响。临床实践中应用替代设计可能会使患者受益。