Comparison of Rectified and Unrectified Sockets for Transtibial Amputees.
The current method for fabricating prosthetic sockets is to modify a positive mold to account for the non-homogeneity of the residual limb to tolerate load (i.e., rectified socket). We tested unrectified sockets by retaining the shape of the residual limb, except for a distal end pad, using an alginate gel process instead of casting. This investigation compared rectified and unrectified sockets. Forty-three adults with unilateral transtibial amputations were tested after randomly wearing both rectified and unrectified sockets for at least 4 weeks. Testing included a gait analysis, energy expenditure and Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ). Results indicated no differences between sockets for gait speed and timing, gait kinematics and kinetics, and gait energy expenditure. There were also no differences in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire and 16 subjects selected the rectified socket, 25 selected the unrectified socket, and 2 subjects selected to use both sockets as their exit socket. Results seemed to indicate that more than one paradigm exists for shaping prosthetic sockets, and this paradigm may be helpful in understanding the mechanisms of socket fit. The alginate gel fabrication method was simpler than the traditional method. The method could be helpful in other countries where prosthetic care is lacking, may be helpful with new amputees, and may be helpful in typical clinics to reduce costs and free the prosthetist to focus more time on patient needs.
Engsberg
Jack R
JR
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, MO.
Sprouse
S Wayne
SW
Uhrich
Mary L
ML
Ziegler
Barbara R
BR
Luitjohan
F Daniel
FD
Eng Med. 1986 Jan;15(1):27-34
3699235
J Prosthet Orthot. 2008;18(1):1-7
18776945
J Orthop Res. 1988;6(2):215-22
3343627
South Med J. 2002 Aug;95(8):875-83
12190225
Am J Public Health. 1999 Aug;89(8):1222-7
10432910
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002 Dec;26(3):243-50
12562072
J Pediatr Orthop. 1986 May-Jun;6(3):291-8
3711320
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Jan;76(1):39-44
7811172
Prosthet Orthot Int. 1985 Apr;9(1):17-22
4000906
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Nov;74(11):1225-31
8239969
Adv Data. 1997 Nov 13;(292):1-9
10182811
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964 Mar;46:335-60
14129683
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1995 May;32(2):111-9
7562650
J Appl Physiol. 1974 Apr;36(4):440-3
4820326
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Jan;58(1):42-6
1249111
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991 Aug;72(9):657-61
1859261
Prosthet Orthot Int. 1992 Dec;16(3):183-8
1491952
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1974 Mar;55(3):111-9
4817680
Phys Ther. 1994 Oct;74(10):943-50
8090845
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1996 Jul;33(3):267-78
8823674
J Biomech. 1988;21(5):361-7
3417688
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Aug;79(8):931-8
9710165
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Dec;75(12):1335-41
7993173
Gait Posture. 2000 Oct;12(2):162-8
10998614