Systematic Review of Studies Examining Transtibial Prosthetic Socket Pressures with Changes in Device Alignment.

Philip Davenport, Siamak Noroozi, Philip Sewell, Saeed Zahedi
Author Information
  1. Philip Davenport: Department of Design and Engineering, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.
  2. Siamak Noroozi: Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.
  3. Philip Sewell: Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.
  4. Saeed Zahedi: Chas A Blatchford and Sons Ltd., Basingstoke, UK.

Abstract

Suitable lower-limb prosthetic sockets must provide an adequate distribution of the pressures created from standing and ambulation. A systematic search for articles reporting socket pressure changes in response to device alignment perturbation was carried out, identifying 11 studies. These were then evaluated using the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists guidelines for a state-of-the-science review. Each study used a design where participants acted as their own controls. Results were available for 52 individuals and five forms of alignment perturbation. Four studies were rated as having moderate internal and external validity, the remainder were considered to have low validity. Significant limitations in study design, reporting quality and in representation of results and the suitability of calculations of statistical significance were evident across articles. Despite the high inhomogeneity of study designs, moderate evidence supports repeatable changes in pressure distribution for specific induced changes in component alignment. However, there also appears to be a significant individual component to alignment responses. Future studies should aim to include greater detail in the presentation of results to better support later meta-analyses.

Keywords

References

  1. Sensors (Basel). 2016 Jul 20;16(7): [PMID: 27447646]
  2. Med Eng Phys. 2015 Jan;37(1):132-7 [PMID: 25455164]
  3. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1980 Apr;4(1):37-44 [PMID: 7367224]
  4. Sensors (Basel). 2012 Sep 25;12(10):12890-926 [PMID: 23201977]
  5. Gait Posture. 2013 Apr;37(4):620-6 [PMID: 23177920]
  6. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1984 Apr;8(1):56-7 [PMID: 6718241]
  7. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):293-304 [PMID: 19675983]
  8. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015 Oct;30(8):867-73 [PMID: 26066394]
  9. Gait Posture. 2009 Oct;30(3):379-82 [PMID: 19647431]
  10. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016 Feb;40(1):31-43 [PMID: 25249383]
  11. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(5):491-508 [PMID: 26436666]
  12. Sensors (Basel). 2013 Aug 12;13(8):10348-57 [PMID: 23941909]
  13. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1999 Dec;23(3):225-30 [PMID: 10890597]
  14. Bull Prosthet Res. 1973 Spring;10(19):52-76 [PMID: 4767330]
  15. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993 Apr;17(1):38-48 [PMID: 8337099]
  16. Artif Limbs. 1962 Jun;6:16-24 [PMID: 13972953]
  17. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100 [PMID: 19621070]
  18. Clin Rehabil. 2003 Nov;17(7):787-96 [PMID: 14606747]
  19. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1986 Apr;23(2):2-19 [PMID: 3723422]
  20. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1999 Apr;23(1):21-9 [PMID: 10355640]
  21. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1993;30(2):191-204 [PMID: 8035348]
  22. Disabil Rehabil. 2006 May 30;28(10):603-8 [PMID: 16690571]
  23. J Rehabil Med. 2016 Apr;48(4):396-401 [PMID: 26983760]
  24. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(10):1493-504 [PMID: 23516053]
  25. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1990 Dec;14(3):143-4 [PMID: 2095531]
  26. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008 Nov;3(6):339-43 [PMID: 19127605]
  27. Disabil Rehabil. 2013 Jun;35(11):888-93 [PMID: 22992201]
  28. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Aug;80(8):563-71 [PMID: 11475475]
  29. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001 Jan-Feb;38(1):1-6 [PMID: 11322461]
  30. Artif Intell Med. 2012 Jan;54(1):29-41 [PMID: 21963113]
  31. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Apr;(361):76-84 [PMID: 10212599]
  32. J Tissue Viability. 2014 Aug;23(3):81-93 [PMID: 25193657]
  33. Gait Posture. 1999 Jul;9(3):207-31 [PMID: 10575082]
  34. Bull Prosthet Res. 1970 Spring;10(13):70-86 [PMID: 5521917]
  35. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1978 Aug;2(2):73-5 [PMID: 724418]
  36. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(6):843-53 [PMID: 23299256]
  37. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2010 Aug 15;12:29-53 [PMID: 20415590]
  38. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998 Mar;6(1):21-31 [PMID: 9535520]
  39. J Biomech Eng. 1987 Aug;109(3):238-46 [PMID: 3657112]
  40. Gait Posture. 2002 Dec;16(3):255-63 [PMID: 12443950]
  41. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1997 Apr;34(2):171-86 [PMID: 9108344]
  42. J Biomed Eng. 1986 Jul;8(3):229-34 [PMID: 3724127]
  43. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:849073 [PMID: 25197716]
  44. J Biomed Eng. 1993 Nov;15(6):451-6 [PMID: 8277747]
  45. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984 Apr;65(4):159-62 [PMID: 6712431]
  46. Med Eng Phys. 1998 Apr;20(3):188-98 [PMID: 9690489]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0alignmentdistributionchangesstudiesstudyarticlesreportingpressureperturbationdesignmoderatevalidityresultscomponentSuitablelower-limbprostheticsocketsmustprovideadequatepressurescreatedstandingambulationsystematicsearchsocketresponsedevicecarriedidentifying11evaluatedusingAmericanAcademyOrthotistsProsthetistsguidelinesstate-of-the-sciencereviewusedparticipantsactedcontrolsResultsavailable52individualsfiveformsFourratedinternalexternalremainderconsideredlowSignificantlimitationsqualityrepresentationsuitabilitycalculationsstatisticalsignificanceevidentacrossDespitehighinhomogeneitydesignsevidencesupportsrepeatablespecificinducedHoweveralsoappearssignificantindividualresponsesFutureaimincludegreaterdetailpresentationbettersupportlatermeta-analysesSystematicReviewStudiesExaminingTranstibialProstheticSocketPressuresChangesDeviceAlignmentBelow-kneeMisalignmentNormalstressPressureProstheses

Similar Articles

Cited By