Patellar tendon morphology in trans-tibial amputees utilizing a prosthesis with a patellar-tendon-bearing feature

Ho, Kang-Jey; Harty, Michelle; Kellogg, Jessica; Teter, Kelly; Lee, Szu‐Ping; Chang, Yu-Jen; Bashford, Gregory R.

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52747-9

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PTB bar is not always required if the patient’s residual limb at the distal end can tolerate weight bearing [ 37 ]. Furthermore, PTB bars increase the risk of tendon injury [ 38 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The AERO prosthetic liner: socket pressure distribution, comfort and material composition

Miyata,

Sasaki,

Guerra

et al. 2024

Annals of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the pressure distribution and comfort of transtibial prosthesis wearers using an affordable ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA) roll-on (AERO) liner. Method Fifteen unilateral transtibial prosthesis users wore patella tendon bearing (PTB) sockets with a polyethylene foam (PE-lite) liner were enrolled this study. AERO liners were provided to all participants. Six force sensors were applied to the residual limb to evaluate pressure distribution during treadmill walking, and the socket comfort score (SCS) was used to evaluate comfortability. Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy was performed on the EVA and PE-lite liners. Results Eleven participants used prefabricated AERO liners and four participants used custom-made AERO liners. The pressure distribution was analysed by the coefficient of variation (CV): PE-lite was 75.7 ± 6.0 and AERO liner 83.3 ± 4.1. Residual limb pressure was significantly decreased when using the AERO liner ( p = .0007), with a large effect size ( r = 0.87). Mean SCS was 7.5 ± 1.3 and 8.9 ± 1.1 for PE-lite and AERO liner respectively. Conclusion Better pressure distribution and comfort were observed when the participants used the AERO liner. AERO had a greater proportion of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ). These findings suggest that the AERO liner is a better off-the-shelf option for persons using traditional prosthetic sockets and liners.

show abstract

“…The PTB bar is not always required if the patient’s residual limb at the distal end can tolerate weight bearing [ 37 ]. Furthermore, PTB bars increase the risk of tendon injury [ 38 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The AERO prosthetic liner: socket pressure distribution, comfort and material composition

Miyata,

Sasaki,

Guerra

et al. 2024

Annals of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, concerns have been raised in some studies about the potential impact of this socket design on residual limb. 17 , 18 Given the roll-on application method of the AERO liner, it may be worth exploring the suitability of total surface bearing socket (TSB) to enhanced comfort and load distribution. 19 - 21 Evenly distributing pressure across the liner is believed to reduce localized pressure points and maintain consistent liner thickness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Feasibility and Durability of the Aero Prosthetic Liner in Transtibial Prosthetic Users

Miyata,

Sasaki,

Guerra

et al. 2023

Can. Prosthet. Orthot. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: The choice of prosthetic socket interface material significantly affects user comfort and satisfaction. The Affordable Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Roll-On (AERO) liner was created with the aim of improving functionality and streamlining the wearing process for users. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess user satisfaction, comfort, and durability of the AERO liner and compare it with the common soft Pe-Lite liner. METHODOLOGY: Fourteen individuals with transtibial amputation participated in this three-month randomized crossover trial study. The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), Expanded Socket Comfort Score (ESCS), and liner thickness measurements were used to comprehensively compare the AERO and Pe-Lite liner. FINDINGS: The AERO liner demonstrated notable improvements in prosthetic comfort and functionality over Pe-Lite liner. After three months use, there was a significant reduction in reported frustration with the AERO liner (p=0.023, r=0.604) in the PEQ subscale. Specific aspects, such as walking with the prosthesis (p=0.030, r=0.601) and odor perception (p=0.024, d=0.579), favored the use of the AERO liner. The expanded socket comfort score (ESCS) revealed significant superiority for the AERO liner “at best” (p=0.04) and “on average” (p=0.02) after one and three months, respectively. Liner thickness analysis showed significant reductions at the mid-patellar tendon location for the AERO liner at one (0.57±0.48) and three months (0.90±0.69, p=0.01) and in the posterior region after three months (0.63±0.64, p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the potential advantages of the AERO liner in enhancing comfort and satisfaction. Yet, durability and thinning of the liner when compared to Pe-Lite may be a concern which may eventually affect socket fit. These findings contribute to ongoing efforts to optimize prosthetic interventions and improve the quality of life of individuals with lower limb prosthesis in resource-limited environments. Layman's Abstract Comfort and satisfaction are essential for people using prosthetics. The socket interface material, which encompasses the limb, is crucial for comfort and suspension of the prosthesis on the limb. In resource-limited environments, people mainly use an interface material called Pe-Lite in their prosthetic sockets. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding its comfort and suitability for the residual limb. We aimed to evaluate an alternative material to determine if it was more comfortable and functional than Pe-Lite for these individuals. We invited fourteen people with transtibial amputations to participate in this study. They used a traditional prosthetic design and were provided both Pe-Lite and AERO liners. We asked them about their experiences and measured the various aspects of their treatment. The results were promising. People who used the AERO liner reported much less frustration after three months. They felt an improvement in walking, and they didn't have odor problems expressed when using Pe-Lite. The AERO liner was more comfortable when using the prosthesis. Although the AERO liner compressed more in certain areas compared to the Pe-Lite liner, it remained usable after three months. However, reduce the liner thickness compared to Pe-Lite may be a concern and could affect the socket fit. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/41865/32282 How To Cite: Miyata Y, Sasaki K, Guerra G, Dacharux W, Chaiwan P. Evaluating feasibility and durability of the AERO prosthetic liner in transtibial prosthetic users. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 1, No.5. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i1.41865 Corresponding Author: Kazuhiko Sasaki, Sirindhorn School of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.E-Mail: kazuhiko.sas@mahidol.eduORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1778-6308

show abstract

Patellar tendon morphology in trans-tibial amputees utilizing a prosthesis with a patellar-tendon-bearing feature

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

The AERO prosthetic liner: socket pressure distribution, comfort and material composition

The AERO prosthetic liner: socket pressure distribution, comfort and material composition

Evaluating Feasibility and Durability of the Aero Prosthetic Liner in Transtibial Prosthetic Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About