Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A clinical comparison of a digital versus conventional design methodology for transtibial prosthetic interfaces
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A clinical comparison of a digital versus conventional design methodology for transtibial prosthetic interfaces
Do you wish to request the book?
A clinical comparison of a digital versus conventional design methodology for transtibial prosthetic interfaces
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A clinical comparison of a digital versus conventional design methodology for transtibial prosthetic interfaces
2024
Overview
A transtibial prosthetic interface typically comprises a compliant liner and an outer rigid socket. The preponderance of today’s conventional liners are mass produced in standard sizes, and conventional socket design is labor-intensive and artisanal, lacking clear scientific rationale. This work tests the clinical efficacy of a novel, physics-based digital design framework to create custom prosthetic liner-socket interfaces. In this investigation, we hypothesize that the novel digital approach will improve comfort outcomes compared to a conventional method of liner-socket design. The digital design framework generates custom transtibial prosthetic interfaces starting from MRI or CT image scans of the residual limb. The interface design employs FEA to simulate limb deformation under load. Interfaces are fabricated for 9 limbs from 8 amputees (1 bilateral). Testing compares novel and conventional interfaces across four assessments: 5-min walking trial, thermal imaging, 90-s standing pressure trial, and an evaluation questionnaire. Outcome measures include antalgic gait criterion, skin surface pressures, skin temperature changes, and direct questionnaire feedback. Antalgic gait is compared via a repeated measures linear mixed model while the other assessments are compared via a non-parametric Wilcoxon sign-rank test. A statistically significant (
) decrease in pain is demonstrated when walking on the novel interfaces compared to the conventional. Standing pressure data show a significant decrease in pressure on novel interfaces at the anterior distal tibia (
), with no significant difference at other measured locations. Thermal results show no statistically significant difference related to skin temperature. Questionnaire feedback shows improved comfort on novel interfaces on posterior and medial sides while standing and the medial side while walking. Study results support the hypothesis that the novel digital approach improves comfort outcomes compared to the evaluated conventional method. The digital interface design methodology also has the potential to provide benefits in design time, repeatability, and cost.
