Outcome of fitting an ICEROSS prosthesis

Abstract

A report of the outcome of fitting ICEROSS prostheses to trans-tibia] amputees from a sub-regional amputee rehabilitation centre is presented. This work has mainly concentrated on obtaining patients' own views to judge advantages and disadvantages of ICEROSS compared to their previous patellar-tendon-bearing (PTB) prostheses. Sixty-nine patients were entered for this study, but the results of the study are based on 54 patients who responded. Fifteen patients (27.7%) had rejected their ICEROSS prosthesis at the time of the study. Provision of ICEROSS prostheses did not improve indoor and outdoor walking abilities in terms of distance or use of other walking aids, nor were they more comfortable to wear. An increase in sweating in the first 3 months of wearing ICEROSS was significant, but settled afterwards. The amputees considered that the rate of stump skin breakdown with ICEROSS compared to their PTB prostheses was significantly less. Walking up and down stairs was more comfortable and in a general overall rating of ICEROSS prostheses they were scored significantly higher by the amputees themselves. It is concluded that appropriate patient selection is vital and in certain cases ICEROSS will provide considerable benefits to the amputees.

User experience of transtibial prosthetic liners

“…silicone, urethane), 7,8,21–23,27–29 in conjunction with different socket suspension mechanisms including clutch/ratchet lock, 7,8,21,22,24,27–29,33 magnetic lock, 7,29 lanyard, 35 passive suction (i.e. Iceross Seal-In), 7,8,21–23,27,29,33 suspension sleeve, 23,24,26,30 elevated vacuum, 28 and Velcro. 7 Given that the liner and suspension mechanism are often combined into a single experimental condition, it was often impossible to examine the effect of changes to the liner or suspension mechanism independently.…”

“…A number of the studies utilised the subject’s existing prosthesis as one of the test conditions and drew comparison to a newly made device with a different liner system. 23,25,26,30,31,35 Unfortunately, this experimental design introduced a number of sources of bias. For example, participants may have a better experience with the new liner simply because the new prosthesis fitted better than the old one.…”

“…Many studies required participants to recall their experience of a previous device after transitioning to a new one, often after many weeks or months. 8,22,23,25,26,31,32,34,35…”

Physical sciences

“…36 The translation of these principles into the human experience was closely monitored in a series of papers where the benefits of silicone liners with regard to hydrostatic loading, limb cushioning, and comfort as well as improved axial suspension through associated pressure gradients and mechanical locking capacity were tempered with a recognition of their poor thermal conductivity. [37][38][39] Similar reports were subsequently published on liners from alternate materials with different compressive properties, including both the gel-based Alpha liner (Willowood, Mt. Sterling, OH, USA) 40 and the urethanebased testing of Total Environmental Control (TEC) liner (Ottobock, Duderstadt, Germany, formerly TEC Interface Systems, Waite Park, MN, USA).…”

Lower extremity leg amputation: an advantage in running?

“…The material properties of the liner have some importance as well 27–29. By using a silicone liner, all mechanical rubbing takes place between the liner and the socket, thereby protecting the skin of the stump from skin erosion, ulceration, or infection 30–33.…”