Literature DB >> 23436696

A comparison between the suction suspension system and the hypobaric Iceross Seal-In® X5 in transtibial amputees.

Stefano Brunelli1, Anna Sofia Delussu, Francesco Paradisi, Roberto Pellegrini, Marco Traballesi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The two passive vacuum suspension systems currently available in total surface-bearing sockets are the hypobaric Iceross Seal-In(®) and the suction suspension system.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of the hypobaric Iceross Seal-In(®) liner with that of the suction suspension system for quality of life, pistoning, and prosthesis efficiency in unilateral transtibial amputees. STUDY
DESIGN: Single-group repeated measures.
METHODS: Ten amputees were enrolled. The pistoning test, used to compare vertical movement of the stump within the socket, and the energy cost of walking test were carried out when the amputees were wearing the suction suspension system and after 2, 5, and 7 weeks of Seal-In® X5 use. The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire and the Houghton Scale Questionnaire of perceived mobility and quality of life with the prosthesis, and the Timed Up&Go Test and the Locomotor Capability Index for functional mobility were also administered at the beginning and end of the study.
RESULTS: The hypobaric Iceross Seal-In® X5 led to significant pistoning reduction and improvement on the Houghton Scale Questionnaire and 3 of 9 domains of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire. No statistical changes were observed in functional mobility or the energy cost of walking tests.
CONCLUSION: Replacing the suction suspension system with the hypobaric Iceross Seal-In® X5 improves quality of life in transtibial amputees.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amputees; lower-limb loss; prosthetic design; suspension

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23436696     DOI: 10.1177/0309364613476531

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int        ISSN: 0309-3646            Impact factor:   1.895


  4 in total

1.  Self-reported socket comfort, mobility, and balance-confidence of individuals with transtibial amputation using pinlock vs suction suspension.

Authors:  Mayank Seth; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Maximilian Tobias Spencer; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo; Jaclyn Megan Sions
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 1.672

2.  The Conventional Non-Articulated SACH or a Multiaxial Prosthetic Foot for Hypomobile Transtibial Amputees? A Clinical Comparison on Mobility, Balance, and Quality of Life.

Authors:  Francesco Paradisi; Anna Sofia Delussu; Stefano Brunelli; Marco Iosa; Roberto Pellegrini; Daniele Zenardi; Marco Traballesi
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2015-05-11

3.  Maintenance of muscle strength retains a normal metabolic cost in simulated walking after transtibial limb loss.

Authors:  Elizabeth Russell Esposito; Ross H Miller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The effects of suction and pin/lock suspension systems on transtibial amputees' gait performance.

Authors:  Hossein Gholizadeh; Noor Azuan Abu Osman; Arezoo Eshraghi; Sadeeq Ali
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.