Mechanical testing of transtibial prosthetic sockets: A discussion paper from the American Orthotic and Prosthetic Association Socket Guidance Workgroup.
Francesca Gariboldi, Andrea Giovanni Cutti, Stefania Fatone, Eric Nickel, Alex Dickinson, Joshua Steer, Jeffrey Erenstone, Saeed Zahedi, AOPA Socket Guidance Workgroup
Author Information
Francesca Gariboldi: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua, Padua (PD), Italy. ORCID
Andrea Giovanni Cutti: INAIL Prosthetic Center, Vigorso di Budrio (BO), Italy. ORCID
Stefania Fatone: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. ORCID
Eric Nickel: Minneapolis VA Health Care System, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Minneapolis, MN, USA. ORCID
Alex Dickinson: Faculty of Engineering & Physical Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. ORCID
Joshua Steer: Faculty of Engineering & Physical Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. ORCID
Jeffrey Erenstone: Performance Orthopedic Design, LLC, Lake Placid, NY, USA. ORCID
Saeed Zahedi: Blatchford, Basingstoke, United Kingdom. ORCID
BACKGROUND: The advent of novel manufacturing technologies, materials, and socket design concepts could introduce risks to prosthetic limb users, as the existing knowledge base for safe fabrication may not apply. Moreover, although structural test standards exist for mass-produced prosthetic components, they are not applicable to prosthetic sockets. METHODS: The "AOPA Socket Guidance Workgroup" was formed in 2020 to provide the prosthetic community with evidence-based clinical best practices and methods in the field of prosthetic socket structural analysis. This multidisciplinary expert workgroup undertook a critical analysis of the knowledge gaps regarding the requirements for mechanical testing of lower limb prosthetic sockets. RESULTS: The Workgroup identified knowledge gaps in 4 domains. Domain 1 describes the shape and composition of a mock residual limb, required to support and generate in vivo representative loading within the socket. Domain 2 concerns prosthetic socket coordinate systems and alignment. Domain 3 regards the components and requirements of test specimens. Finally, Domain 4 considers test conditions, loading parameters, and acceptance criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes these knowledge gaps in detail and recommends potential solution approaches based on literature review, group consensus around existing knowledge, or the formation of new study groups to fill each knowledge gap. Our intent is for the recommendations arising from this paper to support the community (e.g., researchers in the clinic, academia, industry, and funders) in addressing these knowledge gaps.
References
Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2019 Apr 18;2(1):31008
[PMID: 37614804]
