Prosthetic Limbs After Leg Amputation: Alternative Method of Socket Design
Recruitment status was: Active, not recruiting
Device: Unrectified prosthetic socket
Device: Rectified prosthetic socket
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||Comparison of Rectified and Unrectified Amputee Sockets|
- socket selection
- gait speed
- gait kinematics
- gait kinetics
- energy consumption
|Study Start Date:||April 2001|
|Estimated Study Completion Date:||March 2005|
The traditional assumption when fabricating a transtibial amputee (TTA) socket is that the residual limb is not homogeneous in its ability to tolerate load. As a result, prosthetic sockets are currently fabricated by modifying a positive mold to account for this non-homogeneity; these are called rectified sockets. Unrectified sockets retain the shape of the residual limb, except for a distal end pad. Unrectified sockets use an alginate gel method of fabricating that is simpler and less time consuming than the method used to fabricate rectified sockets. This study will compare patient satisfaction and function with rectified and unrectified sockets.
Participants in this study will be randomized to either a recitified socket group or an unrectified socket group. Participants will wear the socket for a minimum of 4 weeks. Participants will then fill out a Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ). The PEQ quantifies patient satisfaction by evaluating nine validated scales. Functional measures of energy expenditure, kinematics, and ground reaction forces during gait will also be collected. After 4 weeks, participants in the rectified socket group will switch to an unrectified socket and participants in the unrectified socket group will switch to a rectified socket. At the end of 4 weeks with the new socket, participants will once again fill out the PEQ and undergo functional assessment. At the end of study participation, each participant will freely choose the socket they wish to have in their final prosthesis.
Thus far, 10 study participants with unilateral transtibial amputations have been evaluated after randomly wearing both rectified and unrectified sockets for 4 weeks. Results indicated no differences between sockets for gait speed and timing, gait kinematics and kinetics, gait energy expenditure, and Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). There were also no differences in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire. Four participants selected the rectified socket and 6 selected the unrectified socket as their exit socket.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00061217
|United States, Missouri|
|Jack R. Engsberg|
|St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110|
|Principal Investigator:||Jack R. Engsberg, Ph.D.|