No abstract

This study compared the pressure distribution at the residual limb and socket interface in amputees wearing a pressure cast (PCast) socket system with amputees wearing the patellar-tendon-bearing (PTB) socket. The PCast system requires the subject to place his or her residual limb in a pressure chamber. Pressure is applied to the residual limb while the subject adopts a normal standing position. Four unilateral male amputees were fitted with both PTB and PCast sockets. Using a specially built strain-gauge-type pressure transducer, we recorded residual limb and socket pressure profiles for each subject wearing the two types of sockets during standing and walking. While some subjects exhibited similar anteriorposterior or medial-lateral pressure profiles for both prostheses, especially during push-off, other subjects exhibited high pressure distally in the PCast socket or higher-pressure concentration at the proximal region in the PTB socket.

The lack of an efficient modelling-simulation-analysis workflow for creating and utilising detailed subject-specific computational models is one of the key reasons why simulation-based approaches for analysing socket-stump interaction have not yet been successfully established. Herein, we propose a novel and efficient modelling-simulation-analysis workflow that uses commercial software for generating a detailed subject-specific, three-dimensional finite element model of an entire residual limb from Diffusion Tensor MRI images in <20 min. Moreover, to complete the modelling-simulation-analysis workflow, the generated subject-specific residual limb model is used within an implicit dynamic FE simulation of bipedal stance to predict the potential sites of deep tissue injury. For this purpose, a nonlinear hyperelastic, transversely isotropic skeletal muscle constitutive law containing a deep tissue injury model was implemented in LS-DYNA. To demonstrate the feasibility of the entire modelling-simulation-analysis workflow and the fact that detailed, anatomically realistic, multi-muscle models are superior to state-of-the-art, fused-muscle models, an implicit dynamic FE analysis of 2-h bipedal stance is carried out. By analysing the potential volume of damaged muscle tissue after donning an optimally-fitted and a misfitted socket, i.e., a socket whose volume was isotropically shrunk by 10%, we were able to highlight the differences between the detailed individual- and fused-muscle models. The results of the bipedal stance simulation showed that peak stresses in the fused-muscle model were four times lower when compared to the multi-muscle model. The peak interface stress in the individual-muscle model, at the end of bipedal stance analysis, was 2.63 times lower than that in the deep tissues of the stump. At the end of the bipedal stance analysis using the misfitted socket, the fused-muscle model predicted that 7.65% of the residual limb volume was injured, while the detailed-model predicted 16.03%. The proposed approach is not only limited to modelling residual limbs but also has applications in predicting the impact of plastic surgery, for detailed forward-dynamics simulations of normal musculoskeletal systems.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pressure distribution at the stump/socket interface in amputees wearing the patellar-tendon-bearing socket. A specially built strain gauged type pressure transducer was used for measuring this pressure distribution in four unilateral transtibial amputees. Pressure and gait parameters were measured simultaneously while they were standing and walking. Pressure profiles were compiled at 10, 25 and 50 per cent of gait cycle and compared with the pressure profiles predicted by Radcliffe in 1961. The subject's anterior-posterior pressure profiles were different from each other. However, at toe-off, each subject exhibited an increase in pressure at the patellar tendon. Their medial-lateral pressure profiles were similar: exhibiting high pressure at the medial proximal and lateral distal regions except for one subject who exhibited high pressure at the lateral proximal region instead. The subjects' pressure profiles did not resemble Radcliffe's anticipated pressure profiles. This was because ground reaction force was not the only factor affecting the resulting pressure profiles.

No abstract