Adjustable prosthetic sockets: a systematic review of industrial and research design characteristics and their justifications.

Adjustable socket Adjustable-volume Artificial limb Prosthesis design Prosthetic Prosthetic interface Prosthetic socket Residual limb Socket Systematic review

Journal

Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 11 2023
Historique:
received: 13 07 2023
accepted: 18 10 2023
medline: 7 11 2023
pubmed: 6 11 2023
entrez: 5 11 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The prosthetic socket is a key component that influences prosthesis satisfaction, with a poorly fitting prosthetic socket linked to prosthesis abandonment and reduced community participation. This paper reviews adjustable socket designs, as they have the potential to improve prosthetic fit and comfort through accommodating residual limb volume fluctuations and alleviating undue socket pressure. Systematic literature and patent searches were conducted across multiple databases to identify articles and patents that discussed adjustable prosthetic sockets. The patents were used to find companies, organisations, and institutions who currently sell adjustable sockets or who are developing devices. 50 literature articles and 63 patents were identified for inclusion, representing 35 different designs used in literature and 16 commercially available products. Adjustable sockets are becoming more prevalent with 73% of publications (literature, patents, and news) occurring within the last ten years. Two key design characteristics were identified: principle of adjustability (inflatable bladders, moveable panels, circumferential adjustment, variable length), and surface form (conformable, rigid multi-DOF, and rigid single DOF). Inflatable bladders contributed to 40% of literature used designs with only one identified commercially available design (n = 16) using this approach. Whereas circumferential adjustment designs covered 75% of identified industry designs compared to only 36% of literature devices. Clinical studies were generally small in size and only 17.6% of them assessed a commercially available socket. There are clear differences in the design focus taken by industry and researchers, with justification for choice of design and range of adjustment often being unclear. Whilst comfort is often reported as improved with an adjustable socket, the rationale behind this is not often discussed, and small study sizes reduce the outcome viability. Many adjustable sockets lack appropriate safety features to limit over or under tightening, which may present a risk of tissue damage or provide inadequate coupling, affecting function and satisfaction. Furthermore, the relationship between design and comfort or function are rarely investigated and remain a significant gap in the literature. Finally, this review highlights the need for improved collaboration between academia and industry, with a strong disconnect observed between commercial devices and published research studies.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The prosthetic socket is a key component that influences prosthesis satisfaction, with a poorly fitting prosthetic socket linked to prosthesis abandonment and reduced community participation. This paper reviews adjustable socket designs, as they have the potential to improve prosthetic fit and comfort through accommodating residual limb volume fluctuations and alleviating undue socket pressure.
METHODS
Systematic literature and patent searches were conducted across multiple databases to identify articles and patents that discussed adjustable prosthetic sockets. The patents were used to find companies, organisations, and institutions who currently sell adjustable sockets or who are developing devices.
RESULTS
50 literature articles and 63 patents were identified for inclusion, representing 35 different designs used in literature and 16 commercially available products. Adjustable sockets are becoming more prevalent with 73% of publications (literature, patents, and news) occurring within the last ten years. Two key design characteristics were identified: principle of adjustability (inflatable bladders, moveable panels, circumferential adjustment, variable length), and surface form (conformable, rigid multi-DOF, and rigid single DOF). Inflatable bladders contributed to 40% of literature used designs with only one identified commercially available design (n = 16) using this approach. Whereas circumferential adjustment designs covered 75% of identified industry designs compared to only 36% of literature devices. Clinical studies were generally small in size and only 17.6% of them assessed a commercially available socket.
DISCUSSION
There are clear differences in the design focus taken by industry and researchers, with justification for choice of design and range of adjustment often being unclear. Whilst comfort is often reported as improved with an adjustable socket, the rationale behind this is not often discussed, and small study sizes reduce the outcome viability. Many adjustable sockets lack appropriate safety features to limit over or under tightening, which may present a risk of tissue damage or provide inadequate coupling, affecting function and satisfaction. Furthermore, the relationship between design and comfort or function are rarely investigated and remain a significant gap in the literature. Finally, this review highlights the need for improved collaboration between academia and industry, with a strong disconnect observed between commercial devices and published research studies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37926807
doi: 10.1186/s12984-023-01270-0
pii: 10.1186/s12984-023-01270-0
pmc: PMC10626671
doi:

Types de publication

Systematic Review Journal Article Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

147

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Prosthet Orthot Int. 1998 Aug;22(2):115-22
pubmed: 9747995
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2019 Aug;233(8):812-822
pubmed: 31165676
PM R. 2019 Nov;11(11):1210-1217
pubmed: 30734517
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982 Apr;63(4):162-5
pubmed: 7082139
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022 Jun;58(3):462-469
pubmed: 35148042
IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2020 Jul 01;8:0700210
pubmed: 32670675
J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2022 Apr 28;9:20556683221093271
pubmed: 35558157
Acta Derm Venereol. 2011 Mar;91(2):178-82
pubmed: 21279299
Evid Based Med. 2016 Aug;21(4):125-7
pubmed: 27339128
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(6):1121-1132
pubmed: 28355039
Technol Innov. 2016 Sep;18(2-3):175-183
pubmed: 28066526
PM R. 2020 Dec;12(12):1236-1243
pubmed: 32103634
Front Neurorobot. 2021 Jan 15;14:604376
pubmed: 33519413
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Jan 08;21(2):
pubmed: 33435553
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(6):845-60
pubmed: 24203546
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2021 Mar 15;3(2):100120
pubmed: 34179756
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Apr;86(4):659-63
pubmed: 15827914
Prosthet Orthot Int. 1985 Aug;9(2):87-91
pubmed: 4047925
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:330-3
pubmed: 19162660
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019 Mar;63:161-171
pubmed: 30901641
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017 Oct;41(5):527-531
pubmed: 27888261
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(6):1107-1120
pubmed: 28355030
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020 Jun;44(3):155-163
pubmed: 32186238
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019 Oct;43(5):528-539
pubmed: 31339448
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2021 Jan;68(1):36-46
pubmed: 32386137
Biomed Eng Lett. 2021 Dec 2;12(1):59-73
pubmed: 35186360
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010 Dec;34(4):378-98
pubmed: 21083505
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(8):949-86
pubmed: 22068373
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 14;13(3):e0192094
pubmed: 29538382
Int Wound J. 2022 Mar;19(3):692-704
pubmed: 34382331
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002 Apr;26(1):72-5
pubmed: 12043930
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019 Jun;43(3):250-256
pubmed: 30628522
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020 Dec;2(4):
pubmed: 33381750
Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2021 Sep 21;4(2):35208
pubmed: 37615005
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2016 Jul;230(7):650-60
pubmed: 27146289
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001 Dec;25(3):202-9
pubmed: 11860094
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Nov;16(8):821-830
pubmed: 32189537
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018 Sep;65(9):1996-2010
pubmed: 29993506
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020 Aug;78:105001
pubmed: 32619870
Acta Derm Venereol. 2011 Mar;91(2):173-7
pubmed: 21290085
Int J Rehabil Res. 2004 Mar;27(1):71-4
pubmed: 15097173
Int J Surg. 2021 Apr;88:105906
pubmed: 33789826
Med Eng Phys. 2022 May;103:103787
pubmed: 35500988
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021 Jun 1;45(3):289-294
pubmed: 34016871
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:849073
pubmed: 25197716

Auteurs

Michael Baldock (M)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK. m.e.baldock@edu.salford.ac.uk.

Nicolaas Pickard (N)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK. n.p.pickard@edu.salford.ac.uk.

Michael Prince (M)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.

Sarah Kirkwood (S)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.

Alix Chadwell (A)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.
School of Engineering at Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

David Howard (D)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.

Alex Dickinson (A)

School of Engineering at the University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Laurence Kenney (L)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.

Niamh Gill (N)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.

Sam Curtin (S)

School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK. s.l.curtin@salford.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH