An adaptive prosthetic socket for people with transtibial amputation.
Adaptive prosthesis
Amputee comfort
Auto-adjusting socket
Closed-loop control
Functional outcome
Socket fit
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 May 2024
15 May 2024
Historique:
received:
20
01
2024
accepted:
01
05
2024
medline:
16
5
2024
pubmed:
16
5
2024
entrez:
15
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is essential that people with limb amputation maintain proper prosthetic socket fit to prevent injury. Monitoring and adjusting socket fit, for example by removing the prosthesis to add prosthetic socks, is burdensome and can adversely affect users' function and quality-of-life. This study presents results from take-home testing of a motor-driven adaptive socket that automatically adjusted socket size during walking. A socket fit metric was calculated from inductive sensor measurements of the distance between the elastomeric liner surrounding the residual limb and the socket's inner surface. A proportional-integral controller was implemented to adjust socket size. When tested on 12 participants with transtibial amputation, the controller was active a mean of 68% of the walking time. In general, participants who walked more than 20 min/day demonstrated greater activity, less doff time, and fewer manual socket size adjustments for the adaptive socket compared with a locked non-adjustable socket and a motor-driven socket that participants adjusted with a smartphone application. Nine of 12 participants reported that they would use a motor-driven adjustable socket if it were available as it would limit their socket fit issues. The size and weight of the adaptive socket were considered the most important variables to improve.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38750086
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61234-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-61234-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11168Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Legro, M. W. et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputation and prostheses. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 36(3), 155–163 (1999).
pubmed: 10659798
Turner, S. & McGregor, A. H. Perceived effects of socket fit on major lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation: A clinician and amputee perspective. Arch. Rehabil. Res. Clin. Transl. 2(3), 100059 (2020).
pubmed: 33543086
pmcid: 7853327
Greenwald, R. M. et al. Volume management: Smart variable geometry socket (SVGS) technology for lower-limb prostheses. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 15(3), 107–112 (2003).
doi: 10.1097/00008526-200307000-00011
Montgomery, J. T., Vaughan, M. R. & Crawford, R. H. Design of an actively actuated prosthetic socket. Rapid Prototyping J. 16(3), 194–201 (2010).
doi: 10.1108/13552541011034861
Pirouzi, G. et al. Development of an air pneumatic suspension system for transtibial prostheses. Sensors (Basel) 14(9), 16754–16765 (2014).
pubmed: 25207872
doi: 10.3390/s140916754
Razak, N. A. A., Osman, N. A. A., Gholizadeh, H. & Sadeeq, A. Prosthetics socket that incorporates an air splint system focusing on dynamic interface pressure. BioMed. Eng. OnLine 13, 108 (2014).
pubmed: 25085005
pmcid: 4120006
doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-13-108
Sang, Y., Li, X. & Luo, Y. Characteristics of a volume-adjustable compression chamber for transradial prosthetic interface. Proc. IMechE. Part H J. Eng. Med. 230(7), 650–660 (2016).
doi: 10.1177/0954411916645132
Candrea, D. et al. An adaptable prosthetic socket: Regulating independent air bladders through closed-loop control. In Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Circuits Syst., Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 1–4 (2017).
Gu, Y. et al. An adaptive socket with auto-adjusting air bladders for interfacing transhumeral prosthesis: A pilot study. Proc. IMechE. Part H J. Eng. Med. 233(8), 812–822 (2019).
doi: 10.1177/0954411919853960
Khudetskyy, I., Antonova-Rafi, Y., Melnyk, H, & Snitsar, Y. System for automatic adjustment of the volume of the receiving sleeve. IEEE International Conference on Problems of Infocommunications. Science and Technology. 39–42 (2020).
Seo, J. H. et al. A prosthetic socket with active volume compensation for amputated lower limb. Sensors (Basel) 21(2), 407 (2021).
pubmed: 33435553
doi: 10.3390/s21020407
Ogawa, A. et al. Design of lower limb prosthesis with contact pressure adjustment by MR fluid. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc., Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 20–24, 330–333 (2008).
Carrigan, W. et al. Pneumatic actuator inserts for interface pressure mapping and fit improvement in lower extremity prosthetics. Proc. IEEE RAS/EMBS Int. Conf. Biomed. Robotics Biomechatronics, 574–579 (2016).
Wheeler, J.W. Amputee testing and technology transfer of high performance sensing and variable volume prosthetic liner. Report Number SAND2016–8863PE for contract AC04–94AL85000. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1390748 (2016).
Mollaee, S. et al. A pneumatic reconfigurable socket for transtibial amputees. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Biomed. Eng. 40(2), e3801 (2024).
doi: 10.1002/cnm.3801
Mercier, M. et al. Fluidic flexible matrix composites for volume management in prosthetic sockets. In Proc. ASME Conf. Smart Mater., Adaptive Structures Intell. Syst., Newport, Rhode Island, USA, SMASIS2014–7706, V002T06A015, 1–7 (2014).
Sanders, J. E. et al. Preliminary evaluation of a novel bladder-liner for facilitating residual limb fluid volume recovery without doffing. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 53(6), 1107–1120 (2016).
pubmed: 28355030
pmcid: 7368584
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.12.0316
Caspers, C. A. Hypobarically-controlled artificial limb for amputees. US Patent Number 5,549,709, Aug. 27 (1996).
Street, G. M. Vacuum suspension and its effects on the limb. Orthopädie Technik Quarterly, IV, 2–7 (2006).
Klute, G. K. et al. Vacuum-assisted socket suspension compared with pin suspension for lower extremity amputees: Effect on fit, activity, and limb volume. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 92(10), 1570–1575 (2011).
pubmed: 21963124
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.05.019
Traballesi, M. et al. Residual limb wounds or ulcers heal in transtibial amputees using an active suction socket system: A randomized control study. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 48(4), 613–623 (2012).
pubmed: 22641248
Arndt, B., Caldwell, R. & Fatone, S. Use of a partial foot prosthesis with vacuum-assisted suspension: A case study. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 23(2), 82–88 (2011).
doi: 10.1097/JPO.0b013e318217e5f7
Gholizadeh, H., Lemaire, E. D. & Eshraghi, A. The evidence-base for elevated vacuum in lower limb prosthetics: Literature review and professional feedback. Clin. Biomech. 37, 108–116 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.06.005
Ferraro, C. Outcomes study of transtibial amputees using elevated vacuum suspension in comparison with pin suspension. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 23(2), 78–81 (2011).
doi: 10.1097/JPO.0b013e3182173b83
Sutton, E., Hoskins, R. & Fosnight, T. Using elevated vacuum to improve functional outcomes: A case report. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 23(4), 184–189 (2011).
doi: 10.1097/JPO.0b013e3182346975
Carvalho, J. A., Mongon, M. D., Belangero, W. D. & Livani, B. A case series featuring extremely short below-knee stumps. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 36(2), 236–238 (2012).
pubmed: 22170876
doi: 10.1177/0309364611430535
Samitier, C. B., Guirao, L., Costea, M., Camós, J. M. & Pleguezuelos, E. The benefits of using a vacuum-assisted socket system to improve balance and gait in elderly transtibial amputees. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 40(1), 83–88 (2016).
pubmed: 25261489
doi: 10.1177/0309364614546927
Rink, C. et al. Elevated vacuum suspension preserves residual-limb skin health in people with lower-limb amputation: Randomized clinical trial. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 53(6), 1121–1132 (2016).
pubmed: 28355039
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2015.07.0145
Youngblood, R. T. et al. Effectiveness of elevated vacuum and suction prosthetic suspension systems in managing daily residual limb fluid volume change in people with transtibial amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 44(3), 155–163 (2020).
pubmed: 32186238
pmcid: 7443051
doi: 10.1177/0309364620909044
Weathersby, E. J. et al. Automatic control of prosthetic socket size for people with transtibial amputation: Implementation and evaluation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 68(1), 36–46 (2021).
pubmed: 32386137
doi: 10.1109/TBME.2020.2992739
Weathersby, E. J. et al. Performance of an auto-adjusting prosthetic socket during walking with intermittent socket release. J. Rehabil Assist. Technol. Eng. 9(3), 20556683221093270 (2022).
pubmed: 35558157
pmcid: 9087223
Sanders, J. E., Harrison, D. S., Allyn, K. J. & Myers, T. R. Clinical utility of in-socket residual limb volume change measurement: Case study results. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 33(4), 378–390 (2009).
pubmed: 19961297
pmcid: 4435543
doi: 10.3109/03093640903214067
Sanders, J. E. et al. How do sock ply changes affect residual-limb fluid volume in people with transtibial amputation?. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 49(2), 241–256 (2012).
pubmed: 22773526
pmcid: 4431546
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2011.02.0022
Sanders, J. E., Cagle, J. C., Allyn, K. J., Harrison, D. S. & Ciol, M. A. How do walking, standing, and resting influence transtibial amputee residual limb volume?. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 51(2), 201–212 (2014).
pubmed: 24933719
pmcid: 4435803
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.04.0085
Youngblood, R. T. et al. Effects of activity intensity, time, and intermittent doffing on daily limb fluid volume change in people with transtibial amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 43(1), 28–38 (2019).
pubmed: 30010494
doi: 10.1177/0309364618785729
Sanders, J. E. et al. Does temporary socket removal affect residual limb fluid volume of trans-tibial amputees?. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 40(3), 320–328 (2016).
pubmed: 25710944
doi: 10.1177/0309364614568413
Sanders, J. E. et al. Post-doffing residual limb fluid volume change in people with trans-tibial amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 36(4), 443–449 (2012).
pubmed: 22588848
pmcid: 4423811
doi: 10.1177/0309364612444752
Brzostowski, J. T. et al. Adjustable sockets may improve residual limb fluid volume retention in transtibial prosthesis users. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 43(3), 250–256 (2019).
pubmed: 30628522
pmcid: 7447526
doi: 10.1177/0309364618820140
McLean, J. B. et al. Fluid volume management in prosthesis users: Augmenting panel release with pin release. PM R. 12(12), 1236–1243 (2020).
pubmed: 32103634
doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12349
Lanahan, C. R. et al. Short partial doffs of release/relock sockets may effectively stabilize limb fluid volume in prosthesis users with transtibial amputation. Clin. Biomech. 106, 105986 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2023.105986
Paternò, L. et al. Residual limb volume fluctuations in transfemoral amputees. Nature Sci. Rep. 11(1), 12273 (2021).
Hanspal, R. S., Fisher, K. & Nieveen, R. Prosthetic socket fit comfort score. Disabil. Rehabil. 25(22), 1278–1280 (2003).
pubmed: 14617445
doi: 10.1080/09638280310001603983
Sanders, J. E., Severance, M. R. & Allyn, K. J. Computer-socket manufacturing error: How much before it is clinically apparent?. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 49(4), 567–582 (2012).
pubmed: 22773260
pmcid: 4432940
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2011.05.0097
Larsen, B. G., Allyn, K. J., Ciol, M. A. & Sanders, J. E. Performance of a sensor to monitor socket fit: Comparison with practitioner clinical assessment. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 33(1), 3–10 (2021).
doi: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000286
McLean, J. B. et al. Socket size adjustments in people with transtibial amputation: Effects on residual limb fluid volume and limb-socket distance. Clin. Biomech. 63, 161–171 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.02.022
Cagle, J. C. et al. A finite element model to assess transtibial prosthetic sockets with elastomeric liners. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 56(7), 1227–1240 (2018).
pubmed: 29235055
doi: 10.1007/s11517-017-1758-z
Paternò, L., Ibrahimi, M., Gruppioni, E., Menciassi, A. & Ricotti, L. Sockets for limb prostheses: A review of existing technologies and open challenges. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 65(9), 1996–2010 (2018).
pubmed: 29993506
doi: 10.1109/TBME.2017.2775100
Coburn, K. A. et al. An instrumented printed insert for continuous monitoring of distal limb motion in suction and elevated vacuum sockets. Prosthesis. 4(4), 710–729 (2022).
doi: 10.3390/prosthesis4040056
Hinrichs, P., Cagle, J. C. & Sanders, J. E. A portable bioimpedance instrument for monitoring residual limb fluid volume in people with transtibial limb loss: A technical note. Med. Eng. Phys. 68(2), 101–107 (2019).
pubmed: 31023596
pmcid: 7417189
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.04.002
Zachariah, S. G., Saxena, R., Fergason, J. R. & Sanders, J. E. Shape and volume change in the transtibial residuum over the short term: Preliminary investigation of six subjects. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 41(5), 683–694 (2004).
pubmed: 15558398
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2003.10.0153
Sanders, J. E. et al. Preliminary investigation of residual-limb fluid volume changes within one day. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 49(10), 1467–1478 (2012).
pubmed: 23516051
pmcid: 4423818
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2011.12.0236
Sanders, J. E., Cagle, J. C., Harrison, D. S., Myers, T. R. & Allyn, K. J. How does adding and removing liquid from socket bladders affect residual-limb fluid volume?. J. Rehabil. Res Dev. 50(6), 845–860 (2013).
pubmed: 24203546
pmcid: 4431595
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2012.06.0121
Sanders, J. E. et al. A motor-driven adjustable prosthetic socket operated using a mobile phone app: A technical note. Med. Eng. Phys. 68(2), 94–100 (2019).
pubmed: 31028009
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.04.003
Medicare Region C Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics Orthotic Supplies (DMEPOS) Manual. Columbia, SC: Palmetto GBA: 2005:53.5–6.
Carter, R. V., Larsen, B. G., McLean, J. B., Garbini, J. L. & Sanders, J. E. Incorporating a ferrous polymer target into elastomeric liners for socket fit sensing in prosthesis users. Sensors (Basel). 20(19), 5620 (2020).
pubmed: 33019604
pmcid: 7582797
doi: 10.3390/s20195620
Bennett, S. et al. A sensor to monitor limb depth in transtibial sockets with locking pin suspension: A technical note. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 45(4), 362–367 (2021).
pubmed: 34284411
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000025
Mertens, J. C. et al. A novel portable sensor to monitor bodily positions and activitites in transtibial prosthesis users. Clin. Biomech. 99, 105741 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105741