@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2008-2630 Iranian Journal of War & Public Health 2016;8(2):119-125
ISSN: 2008-2630 Iranian Journal of War & Public Health 2016;8(2):119-125
Effect of Silicone Brim Socket of Transfemoral Prosthesis on Pressure Level in Proximal Weight Bearing Areas and Comparing with Conventional Socket
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Case ReportAuthors
Ejraei Dolat Abad H. (*)Haji Aghaei B. (1)
Jalali M. (1)
Saeedi H. (1)
(*) Orthotics & Prosthetics Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(1) Orthotics & Prosthetics Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence
Address: Orthotics & Prosthetics Department, School of Rehabilitation, Madad Karan Street, Shah Nazari Street, Mother Square, Tehran, IranPhone: +982122220947
Fax: -
habib.ejraei70@gmail.com
Article History
Received: February 23, 2016Accepted: April 20, 2016
ePublished: June 18, 2016
ABSTRACT
Aims
High pressures between the stamp and the socket after mutilation and receiving a prosthetic device is one of the main problems of the persons using such prosthesis. The aim of this study was to design and make a socket with a silicone brim in the trans-femoral prosthesis, as well as to investigate the pressure in the upper weight bearing areas compared to the current socket.
Patient & Methods In the one-sample case study, a 38-year-old male person with unilateral (right side) traumatic trans-femoral amputation was studied. Two sockets, one made by the current method and another made with a silicone brim, were presented to the person. Using FSR (force sensing resistance) and an Arduino Due microcontroller board, a pressure measurement device was used to measure the pressure level.
Findings In the sensor under the inferior pubic ramus (No. 8), there were 24.9% and 50.8% pressure increases in the silicone brim socket than the current socket in bipedal standing and standing on the prosthetic leg, respectively. In the sensor located in the upper part of scarpa’s triangle (No. 2), there was 29.1% pressure increasing on the silicone brim socket standing on the prosthetic leg. In addition, in the sensor on the ischial pad (No. 7), there was 2.4% pressure increasing on the silicone brim socket during walking at the loading response. The lowest pressure was in the femur great trochanter sensor (No. 4) in all cases and both sockets. On other points in all studied conditions, there were lower pressure levels in the silicone brim socket than the current socket.
Conclusion Using the silicone brim socket in the trans-femoral prosthesis leads to decreasing of the pressures on the stamp compared to the current sockets.
Patient & Methods In the one-sample case study, a 38-year-old male person with unilateral (right side) traumatic trans-femoral amputation was studied. Two sockets, one made by the current method and another made with a silicone brim, were presented to the person. Using FSR (force sensing resistance) and an Arduino Due microcontroller board, a pressure measurement device was used to measure the pressure level.
Findings In the sensor under the inferior pubic ramus (No. 8), there were 24.9% and 50.8% pressure increases in the silicone brim socket than the current socket in bipedal standing and standing on the prosthetic leg, respectively. In the sensor located in the upper part of scarpa’s triangle (No. 2), there was 29.1% pressure increasing on the silicone brim socket standing on the prosthetic leg. In addition, in the sensor on the ischial pad (No. 7), there was 2.4% pressure increasing on the silicone brim socket during walking at the loading response. The lowest pressure was in the femur great trochanter sensor (No. 4) in all cases and both sockets. On other points in all studied conditions, there were lower pressure levels in the silicone brim socket than the current socket.
Conclusion Using the silicone brim socket in the trans-femoral prosthesis leads to decreasing of the pressures on the stamp compared to the current sockets.
CITATION LINKS
[1]Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):422-9.
[2]Saeid Zakerin M, Hoviat Talab K, Shahabi M. The effect of home visit on self care of war-disabled people with lower limb amputation. Pajohandeh. 2000;5(1):107-11. [Persian]
[3]Klotz R, Colobert B, Botino M, Permentiers I. Influence of different types of sockets on the range of motion of the hip joint by the transfemoral amputee. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;54(7):399-410.
[4]Dumbleton T, Buis A, McFadyen A, McHugh BF, McKay G, Murray KD, et al. Dynamic interface pressure distributions of two transtibial prosthetic socket concepts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):405-15.
[5]Klute GK, Kallfelz CF, Czerniecki JM. Mechanical properties of prosthetic limbs: adapting to the patient. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38(3):299-307.
[6]Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH, Surgeons AAoO. Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Rosemont; 2004.
[7]Lusardi MM, Jorge M, Jorge M, Nielsen CC. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation. 3rd edition. United States: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
[8]Klute GK, Rowe GI, Mamishev AV, Ledoux WR. The thermal conductivity of prosthetic sockets and liners. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):292-9.
[9]Lee WC, Zhang M, Mak AF. Regional differences in pain threshold and tolerance of the transtibial residual limb: Including the effects of age and interface material. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(4):641-9.
[10]Jia X, Zhang M, Lee WC. Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb-dynamic effects. J Biomech. 2004;37(9):1371-7.
[11]Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, Chardon JP. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(4):659-63.
[12]Ali S, Osman NA, Mortaza N, Eshraghi A, Gholizadeh H, Wan Abas WA. Clinical investigation of the interface pressure in the trans-tibial socket with Dermo and Seal-In X5 liner during walking and their effect on patient satisfaction. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(9):943-8.
[13]Visscher MO, Robinson M, Fugit B, Rosenberg RJ, Hoath SB, Wickett RR. Amputee skin condition: occlusion, stratum corneum hydration and free amino acid levels. Arch Dermatol Res. 2011;303(2):117-24.
[14]Meulenbelt HE, Geertzen JH, Jonkman MF, Dijkstra PU. Skin problems of the stump in lower limb amputees: 1. A clinical study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2011;91(2):173-7.
[15]Neumann ES, Wong JS, Drollinger RL. Concepts of pressure in an ischial containment socket: Measurement. J Prostheti Orthot. 2005;17(1):2-11.
[16]FSR 402 Short [Internet]. Los Angeles: Interlink Electronics [Cited 2015, 5 November]. Available from: http://www.interlinkelectronics.com/FSR402.php
[17]Baars EC, Geertzen JH. Literature review of the possible advantages of silicon liner socket use in trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29(1):27-37.
[2]Saeid Zakerin M, Hoviat Talab K, Shahabi M. The effect of home visit on self care of war-disabled people with lower limb amputation. Pajohandeh. 2000;5(1):107-11. [Persian]
[3]Klotz R, Colobert B, Botino M, Permentiers I. Influence of different types of sockets on the range of motion of the hip joint by the transfemoral amputee. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;54(7):399-410.
[4]Dumbleton T, Buis A, McFadyen A, McHugh BF, McKay G, Murray KD, et al. Dynamic interface pressure distributions of two transtibial prosthetic socket concepts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):405-15.
[5]Klute GK, Kallfelz CF, Czerniecki JM. Mechanical properties of prosthetic limbs: adapting to the patient. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38(3):299-307.
[6]Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH, Surgeons AAoO. Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Rosemont; 2004.
[7]Lusardi MM, Jorge M, Jorge M, Nielsen CC. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation. 3rd edition. United States: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
[8]Klute GK, Rowe GI, Mamishev AV, Ledoux WR. The thermal conductivity of prosthetic sockets and liners. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):292-9.
[9]Lee WC, Zhang M, Mak AF. Regional differences in pain threshold and tolerance of the transtibial residual limb: Including the effects of age and interface material. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(4):641-9.
[10]Jia X, Zhang M, Lee WC. Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb-dynamic effects. J Biomech. 2004;37(9):1371-7.
[11]Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, Chardon JP. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(4):659-63.
[12]Ali S, Osman NA, Mortaza N, Eshraghi A, Gholizadeh H, Wan Abas WA. Clinical investigation of the interface pressure in the trans-tibial socket with Dermo and Seal-In X5 liner during walking and their effect on patient satisfaction. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(9):943-8.
[13]Visscher MO, Robinson M, Fugit B, Rosenberg RJ, Hoath SB, Wickett RR. Amputee skin condition: occlusion, stratum corneum hydration and free amino acid levels. Arch Dermatol Res. 2011;303(2):117-24.
[14]Meulenbelt HE, Geertzen JH, Jonkman MF, Dijkstra PU. Skin problems of the stump in lower limb amputees: 1. A clinical study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2011;91(2):173-7.
[15]Neumann ES, Wong JS, Drollinger RL. Concepts of pressure in an ischial containment socket: Measurement. J Prostheti Orthot. 2005;17(1):2-11.
[16]FSR 402 Short [Internet]. Los Angeles: Interlink Electronics [Cited 2015, 5 November]. Available from: http://www.interlinkelectronics.com/FSR402.php
[17]Baars EC, Geertzen JH. Literature review of the possible advantages of silicon liner socket use in trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29(1):27-37.