Mertens J C, Price C A, Baumann M E, DeGrasse N S, Allyn K J, Salazar A, Childers W L, Sanders J E
Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Center for the Intrepid, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2025 May 16;12:20556683251341473. doi: 10.1177/20556683251341473. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
The purpose of this study was to test the performance of an adjustable socket for transtibial prosthesis users during military relevant tasks. Investigational sockets with motor-driven adjustable panels were fabricated for each participant. Sensors to detect liner-to-socket distance were embedded in the socket wall during fabrication, and collected data were used to calculate a socket fit metric (SFM). Participants completed two military readiness assessments, the Readiness Evaluation during simulated Dismounted Operations and the Common Military Tasks, in each of three socket volume adjustment modes: static (non-adjustable), user-adjusted (using a phone app), and auto (adjusted by a controller). Socket and participant performance and self-reported outcome metrics were collected. In 11 Service members or Veterans, the SFM distribution was significantly lower for the auto mode compared with the user-adjusted and static modes ( = 0.023, 0.010, respectively). The socket volume was adjusted more often ( = 0.003) and underwent a greater range of adjustment ( = 0.001) for auto versus user-adjusted. The change in pre- and post-activity socket comfort score (SCS) was not significantly different between modes. The results highlight the errors in socket fit in static and user-adjusted sockets and demonstrate how an automatically adjusting socket can minimize error without impeding task performance.
本研究的目的是测试一种可调节接受腔在军事相关任务中供经胫骨假肢使用者使用时的性能。为每位参与者制作了带有电动可调节面板的试验性接受腔。在制作过程中,将用于检测内衬与接受腔距离的传感器嵌入接受腔壁,收集到的数据用于计算接受腔适配指标(SFM)。参与者在三种接受腔容积调节模式下,分别完成了两项军事准备评估,即模拟徒步作战期间的准备评估和通用军事任务:静态(不可调节)、用户调节(使用手机应用程序)和自动(由控制器调节)。收集了接受腔和参与者的性能以及自我报告的结果指标。在11名现役军人或退伍军人中,自动模式下的SFM分布显著低于用户调节模式和静态模式(分别为 = 0.023,0.010)。与用户调节模式相比,自动模式下接受腔容积的调节更频繁( = 0.003),调节范围更大( = 0.001)。各模式之间活动前后接受腔舒适度评分(SCS)的变化无显著差异。结果突出了静态和用户调节接受腔在适配方面的误差,并展示了自动调节接受腔如何在不影响任务性能的情况下将误差降至最低。