@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2008-2630 Iranian Journal of War & Public Health 2014;6(5):227-231
ISSN: 2008-2630 Iranian Journal of War & Public Health 2014;6(5):227-231
Comparison of the Piston Movement between two Supracondylar PTB Prostheses in Transtibial Amputees; A Case Report Study
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Case ReportAuthors
Haji Aghayi B (*)Anoushe S.Z (1)
Sa’eidi H (1)
Gholizadeh H (2)
(*) Rehabilitation Department, Rehabilitation Sciences Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(1) Rehabilitation Department, Rehabilitation Sciences Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(1) Rehabilitation Department, Rehabilitation Sciences Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(2) Biomedical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Malaya University, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia
Correspondence
Address: Rehabilitation Department, Rehabilitation Sciences Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Nezam Street, Shahid Shahnazari Street, Madar Square, Mirdamad Boulevard, Tehran, Iran. Postal Code: 13487-15495Phone: +982122220946(254)
Fax: +982122220946
bhajiaghaei@yahoo.com
Article History
Received: June 24, 2014Accepted: August 26, 2014
ePublished: November 6, 2014
ABSTRACT
Aims
Below the knee amputation is the most common of lower limb amputations. The suspension system of the below the knee prostheses, is an important component of it. The aim of this study was to compare the piston movement of two types of prostheses including "conventional supracondylar PTB" and "supracondylar PTB with pneumatic suspension" in the unilateral below the knee amputee.
Participants & Methods This simple quasi-experimental study was done in the Rehabilitation Clinic of Orthotics and Prosthetics Department of Iran Rehabilitation Sciences School, inviting the unilateral below the knee amputee in 2014. After air-cushion designing and manufacturing process, the piston movement of a conventional supracondylar PTB prostheses and supracondylar PTB prosthesis with pneumatic suspension was measured using imaging and markers in 4-step constant loading test including full weight bearing, semi-weight bearing, non-weight bearing and the 30N loading.
Findings The mean vertical movement of the markers in conventional prostheses in non-weight bearing was ±15mm, whereas this value decreased in the pneumatic prostheses (5±mm). The mean vertical movement of the markers following 3kg loading in the conventional prostheses was 20±mm while it decreased in the pneumatic prostheses (10±mm).
Conclusion Piston movement decreased using the supracondylar PTB prostheses with pneumatic suspension.
Participants & Methods This simple quasi-experimental study was done in the Rehabilitation Clinic of Orthotics and Prosthetics Department of Iran Rehabilitation Sciences School, inviting the unilateral below the knee amputee in 2014. After air-cushion designing and manufacturing process, the piston movement of a conventional supracondylar PTB prostheses and supracondylar PTB prosthesis with pneumatic suspension was measured using imaging and markers in 4-step constant loading test including full weight bearing, semi-weight bearing, non-weight bearing and the 30N loading.
Findings The mean vertical movement of the markers in conventional prostheses in non-weight bearing was ±15mm, whereas this value decreased in the pneumatic prostheses (5±mm). The mean vertical movement of the markers following 3kg loading in the conventional prostheses was 20±mm while it decreased in the pneumatic prostheses (10±mm).
Conclusion Piston movement decreased using the supracondylar PTB prostheses with pneumatic suspension.
CITATION LINKS
[1]Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH (Authors and Editors). Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies. 3rd ed. Rosemont: Amer Academy of Orthopaedic; 2004.
[2]Lusardi MM, Jorge M, Nielson CC. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012.
[3]Yiğiter K, Sener G, Bayar K. Comparison of the effects of patellar tendon bearing and total surface bearing sockets on prosthetic fitting and rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26(3):206-12.
[4]Klute GK, Berge JS, Biggs W, Pongnumkul S, Popovic Z, Curless B. Vacuum-assisted socket suspension compared with pin suspension for lower extremity amputees: effect on fit, activity, and limb volume. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10):1570-5.
[5]Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Ali S, Sævarsson SK, Wan Abas WA. An experimental study of the interface pressure profile during level walking of a new suspension system for lower limb amputees. Clin Biomech. 2013;28(1):55-60.
[6]Datta D, Vaidya SK, Howitt J, Gopalan L. Outcome of fitting an ICEROSS prosthesis: Views of trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthotics Int. 1996;20(2):111-5.
[7]Grevsten S. Ideas on the suspension of the below-knee prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1978;2(1):3-7.
[8]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Razak NA. Transtibial prosthesis suspension systems: Systematic review of literature. Clin Biomech. 2014;29(1):87-97.
[9]Gholizadeh H, Osman NA, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Abas WA, Azam MN. Transtibial prosthetic socket pistoning: static evaluation of Seal-In(®) X5 and Dermo(®) Liner using motion analysis system. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(1):34-9.
[10]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Lúvíksdóttir Á, Eshraghi A, Kamyab M, Wan Abas WA. A new approach for the pistoning measurement in transtibial prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(4):360-4.
[11]Abu Osman NA, Wan Abas WAB, Abdul Wahab AKh, Ting HN. A new method for measuring pistoning in lower limb prosthetic. In: Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Lúvíksdóttir Á, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Ali S, et al. 5th Kuala Lumpur International Conference on Biomedical Engineering. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. Pp. 728-31.
[12]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Lúvíksdóttir AG, Wan Abas WA. Clinical evaluation of two prosthetic suspension systems in a bilateral transtibial amputee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(10):894-8.
[13]Brunelli S, Delussu AS, Paradisi F, Pellegrini R, Traballesi M. A comparison between the suction suspension system and the hypobaric Iceross Seal-In® X5 in transtibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37(6):436-44.
[14]Lilja M, Johansson T, Oberg T. Movement of the tibial end in a PTB prosthesis socket: a sagittal X-ray study of the PTB prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(1):21-6.
[15]Tanner JE, Berke GM. Radiographic comparison of vertical tibial translation using two types of suspensions on a transtibial prosthesis: A case study. J Prosthet Orthot. 2001;13(1):14-6.
[2]Lusardi MM, Jorge M, Nielson CC. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012.
[3]Yiğiter K, Sener G, Bayar K. Comparison of the effects of patellar tendon bearing and total surface bearing sockets on prosthetic fitting and rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26(3):206-12.
[4]Klute GK, Berge JS, Biggs W, Pongnumkul S, Popovic Z, Curless B. Vacuum-assisted socket suspension compared with pin suspension for lower extremity amputees: effect on fit, activity, and limb volume. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10):1570-5.
[5]Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Ali S, Sævarsson SK, Wan Abas WA. An experimental study of the interface pressure profile during level walking of a new suspension system for lower limb amputees. Clin Biomech. 2013;28(1):55-60.
[6]Datta D, Vaidya SK, Howitt J, Gopalan L. Outcome of fitting an ICEROSS prosthesis: Views of trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthotics Int. 1996;20(2):111-5.
[7]Grevsten S. Ideas on the suspension of the below-knee prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1978;2(1):3-7.
[8]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Razak NA. Transtibial prosthesis suspension systems: Systematic review of literature. Clin Biomech. 2014;29(1):87-97.
[9]Gholizadeh H, Osman NA, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Abas WA, Azam MN. Transtibial prosthetic socket pistoning: static evaluation of Seal-In(®) X5 and Dermo(®) Liner using motion analysis system. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(1):34-9.
[10]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Lúvíksdóttir Á, Eshraghi A, Kamyab M, Wan Abas WA. A new approach for the pistoning measurement in transtibial prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(4):360-4.
[11]Abu Osman NA, Wan Abas WAB, Abdul Wahab AKh, Ting HN. A new method for measuring pistoning in lower limb prosthetic. In: Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Lúvíksdóttir Á, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Ali S, et al. 5th Kuala Lumpur International Conference on Biomedical Engineering. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. Pp. 728-31.
[12]Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Lúvíksdóttir AG, Wan Abas WA. Clinical evaluation of two prosthetic suspension systems in a bilateral transtibial amputee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(10):894-8.
[13]Brunelli S, Delussu AS, Paradisi F, Pellegrini R, Traballesi M. A comparison between the suction suspension system and the hypobaric Iceross Seal-In® X5 in transtibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37(6):436-44.
[14]Lilja M, Johansson T, Oberg T. Movement of the tibial end in a PTB prosthesis socket: a sagittal X-ray study of the PTB prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(1):21-6.
[15]Tanner JE, Berke GM. Radiographic comparison of vertical tibial translation using two types of suspensions on a transtibial prosthesis: A case study. J Prosthet Orthot. 2001;13(1):14-6.