Transtibial prosthetic socket fitting: Australian prosthetist perspectives on primary challenges, management strategies, and opportunities for workflow and technological innovation.
Journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
ISSN: 1746-1553
Titre abrégé: Prosthet Orthot Int
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7707720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2023
01 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
accepted:
31
05
2022
medline:
13
4
2023
pubmed:
17
9
2022
entrez:
16
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Following transtibial amputation, a custom-built socket is the most common interface between the prosthesis and residual limb. Desire from both prosthetists and prosthesis users for improved socket fitting processes have been well documented. However, there is currently limited information available about prosthetists' experiences of how prosthetic manufacturing workflow can contribute to socket fit problems. This study aims to determine how socket fit problems are currently detected and managed by prosthetists and to identify challenges, management strategies, and opportunities for workflow and technological innovation during prosthesis manufacture and socket fitting. Mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) survey. An online survey was developed and piloted in consultation with members of the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association. The final 25-question survey was distributed through their membership database. Mixed methods were used to analyze survey items. Qualitative items were grouped and coded under themes relating to challenges, management strategies, and opportunities. Quantitative data were analyzed using nonparametric descriptive methods. Twenty-three respondents with a range of experience completed the survey. Seven of eight major Australian states/territories were represented. Primary workflow stages presenting challenges with limited strategies/solutions available to the prosthetists were roll-on liner selection, mold or cast modifications, communication with the client, and check socket fitting. Suggested solutions included improved socket-limb interface monitoring technology. This study provides the first insights into prosthetist-identified challenges and limitations at different stages of the socket workflow and presents a starting point for more targeted research into innovation that may assist in these processes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Following transtibial amputation, a custom-built socket is the most common interface between the prosthesis and residual limb. Desire from both prosthetists and prosthesis users for improved socket fitting processes have been well documented. However, there is currently limited information available about prosthetists' experiences of how prosthetic manufacturing workflow can contribute to socket fit problems.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to determine how socket fit problems are currently detected and managed by prosthetists and to identify challenges, management strategies, and opportunities for workflow and technological innovation during prosthesis manufacture and socket fitting.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) survey.
METHODS
METHODS
An online survey was developed and piloted in consultation with members of the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association. The final 25-question survey was distributed through their membership database. Mixed methods were used to analyze survey items. Qualitative items were grouped and coded under themes relating to challenges, management strategies, and opportunities. Quantitative data were analyzed using nonparametric descriptive methods.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-three respondents with a range of experience completed the survey. Seven of eight major Australian states/territories were represented. Primary workflow stages presenting challenges with limited strategies/solutions available to the prosthetists were roll-on liner selection, mold or cast modifications, communication with the client, and check socket fitting. Suggested solutions included improved socket-limb interface monitoring technology.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides the first insights into prosthetist-identified challenges and limitations at different stages of the socket workflow and presents a starting point for more targeted research into innovation that may assist in these processes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36112475
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000174
pii: 00006479-202304000-00011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
194-203Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Références
Procedures Data Cubes. 2020. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/hospitals/procedures-data-cubes . Accessed July 4, 2021.
Dillon MP, Kohler F, Peeva V. Incidence of lower limb amputation in Australian hospitals from 2000 to 2010. Prosthet Orthot Int 2014; 38: 122–132.
Turner S, McGregor AH: Perceived effect of socket fit on major lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation: a clinician and amputee perspective. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl 2020; 2: 10059.
Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev 1999; 36: 155–163.
Klute GK, Kantor C, Darrouzet C, et al. Lower-limb amputee needs assessment using multistakeholder focus-group approach. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009; 46: 293–304.
Meulenbelt HE, Geertzen JH, Dijkstra PU, et al. Skin problems in lower limb amputees: an overview by case reports. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2007; 21: 147–155.
Safari R. Lower limb prosthetic interfaces: clinical and technological advancement and potential future direction. Prosthet Orthot Int 2020; 44: 384–401.
Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al. Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews. J Rehabil Res Dev 2016; 53: 157–184.
Webster JB, Crunkhorn A, Sall J, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the rehabilitation of lower limb amputation: an update from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2019; 98: 820–829.
Stevens PM, DePalma RR, Wurdeman SR. Transtibial socket design, interface, and suspension: a clinical practice guideline. J Prosthetics Orthot 2019; 31: 172–178.
Suyi Yang E, Aslani N, McGarry A. Influences and trends of various shape-capture methods on outcomes in trans-tibial prosthetics: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int 2019; 43: 540–555.
Tafti N, Karimlou M, Mardani MA, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new anatomically based prosthetic alignment method for below-knee prosthesis. Assist Technol 2020; 32: 38–46.
Dillon MP, Fortington LV, Akram M, et al. Geographic variation of the incidence rate of lower limb amputation in Australia from 2007-12. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0170705.
Tran L, Caldwell R, Quigley M, et al. Stakeholder perspectives for possible residual limb monitoring system for persons with lower-limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil 2020; 42: 63–70.
Hanspal RS, Fisher K, Nieveen R. Prosthetic socket fit comfort score. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 1278–1280.
Gailey R, Kristal A, Lucarevic J, et al. The development and internal consistency of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey in active lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2019; 43: 80–87.
Dickinson AS, Donovan-Hall MK, Kheng S, et al. Selecting appropriate 3D scanning technologies for prosthetic socket design and transtibial residual limb shape characterization. J Prosthetics Orthot 2022;34(1):33-43.
Armitage L, Buller A, Rajan G, et al. Clinical utility of pressure feedback to socket design and fabrication. Prosthet Orthot Int 2020; 44: 18–26.
Chadwell A, Diment L, Micó-Amigo M, et al. Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review. J NeuroEng Rehabil 2020; 17: 1–26.