Mechanical Evaluation Of Unity Elevated Vacuum Suspension System.

Amputation Elevated vacuum Prosthesis Prosthetic limb Prosthetic suspension system Rehabilitation sociodemographics

Journal

Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal
ISSN: 2561-987X
Titre abrégé: Can Prosthet Orthot J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101775715

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 20 07 2019
accepted: 16 03 2020
medline: 20 3 2020
pubmed: 20 3 2020
entrez: 24 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Small residual limb-socket displacement is a good indicator of prosthetic suspension system quality. Active vacuum suspension systems can decrease vertical movement inside the socket, compared to non-active suction systems. This study mechanically evaluated limb-socket displacement with the Össur Unity active vacuum system. Forty-eight conditions were evaluated: four cylindrical and four conical sockets (polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG), thermoset resin (acrylic), Thermolyn soft materials); two Iceross Seal-In V liners (standard, high profile); three vacuum conditions (active vacuum, inactive vacuum, no suction with valve open). An Instron 4428 test machine applied 0-100N linear ramped tensile loads to each positive mold, with the socket secured in place, while displacement between the mold and socket was recorded. Following the displacement tests, the load before failure (i.e., 10 mm displacement) was measured. Average and standard deviations for movement between the mold and sockets were small. The displacement average for all conditions was 0.30±0.16mm for active vacuum, 0.32±0.16mm for inactive vacuum, and 0.39±0.22mm for no suction. Across all trials, active vacuum systems tolerated significantly (p<0.001) more load before failure (812±221N) compared to inactive vacuum (727±213N), and no suction (401±184N). The maximum load before failure (1142±53N) was for the cylindrical polypropylene socket and high-profile liner. The Unity system successfully controlled pistoning inside the socket for regular activity loads and also controlled the greatest traction loads. While relative movement was smallest for Unity, all conditions (inactive vacuum, no suction) were viable for loads less than 100N. Furthermore, similar results can be achieved when using different socket fabrication materials.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Small residual limb-socket displacement is a good indicator of prosthetic suspension system quality. Active vacuum suspension systems can decrease vertical movement inside the socket, compared to non-active suction systems. This study mechanically evaluated limb-socket displacement with the Össur Unity active vacuum system.
METHOD METHODS
Forty-eight conditions were evaluated: four cylindrical and four conical sockets (polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG), thermoset resin (acrylic), Thermolyn soft materials); two Iceross Seal-In V liners (standard, high profile); three vacuum conditions (active vacuum, inactive vacuum, no suction with valve open). An Instron 4428 test machine applied 0-100N linear ramped tensile loads to each positive mold, with the socket secured in place, while displacement between the mold and socket was recorded. Following the displacement tests, the load before failure (i.e., 10 mm displacement) was measured.
RESULTS RESULTS
Average and standard deviations for movement between the mold and sockets were small. The displacement average for all conditions was 0.30±0.16mm for active vacuum, 0.32±0.16mm for inactive vacuum, and 0.39±0.22mm for no suction. Across all trials, active vacuum systems tolerated significantly (p<0.001) more load before failure (812±221N) compared to inactive vacuum (727±213N), and no suction (401±184N). The maximum load before failure (1142±53N) was for the cylindrical polypropylene socket and high-profile liner.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The Unity system successfully controlled pistoning inside the socket for regular activity loads and also controlled the greatest traction loads. While relative movement was smallest for Unity, all conditions (inactive vacuum, no suction) were viable for loads less than 100N. Furthermore, similar results can be achieved when using different socket fabrication materials.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37614770
doi: 10.33137/cpoj.v2i2.32941
pii: cpoj.v2i2.32941
pmc: PMC10443497
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

32941

Informations de copyright

Copyright (c) 2020 Hossein Gholizadeh, Edward D Lemaire, Rasool Salekrostam.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.

Références

Skeletal Radiol. 1988;17(4):276-80
pubmed: 3212490
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(9):1321-30
pubmed: 23408214
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Oct;91(10):894-8
pubmed: 22173083
Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993 Apr;17(1):21-6
pubmed: 8337097
PLoS One. 2014 May 14;9(5):e94520
pubmed: 24827560
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011 Dec;35(4):360-4
pubmed: 21975850
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016 Aug;37:108-116
pubmed: 27423025
Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997 Dec;21(3):175-8
pubmed: 9453088
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005 Apr;29(1):27-37
pubmed: 16180375
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(10):1231-48
pubmed: 22234667
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Jul-Aug;43(4):509-16
pubmed: 17123190
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004 Mar;41(2):175-86
pubmed: 15558371
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016 Feb;40(1):83-8
pubmed: 25261489
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012 Jun;36(2):181-9
pubmed: 22307862
Biomed Eng Online. 2014 Jan 10;13:1
pubmed: 24410918
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990 Fall;27(4):385-96
pubmed: 2089149
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Jan;27(1):34-9
pubmed: 21794965
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000 Dec;24(3):226-32
pubmed: 11195358
Sci Rep. 2013;3:2270
pubmed: 23881340
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012 Mar;36(1):15-24
pubmed: 22269941
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Dec;37(6):436-44
pubmed: 23436696
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Dec;48(4):613-23
pubmed: 22641248
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001 Dec;25(3):202-9
pubmed: 11860094
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Oct;92(10):1570-5
pubmed: 21963124
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017 Mar;231(3):235-242
pubmed: 28164748

Auteurs

H Gholizadeh (H)

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Rehabilitation Research and Development, Ottawa, Canada.

E D Lemaire (ED)

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Rehabilitation Research and Development, Ottawa, Canada.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

R Salekrostam (R)

Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Classifications MeSH