H Gholizadeh1, E D Lemaire2, A Eshraghi3. 1. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Rehabilitation Research and Development, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Electronic address: hgholizadeh@ohri.ca. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Rehabilitation Research and Development, Ottawa, Canada; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. Electronic address: elemaire@toh.ca. 3. Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kid's Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: arezoo@um.edu.my.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An optimal suspension system can improve comfort and quality of life in people with limb loss. To guide practice on prosthetic vacuum suspension systems, assessment of the current evidence and professional opinion are required. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were explored to find related articles. Search terms were amputees, artificial limb, prosthetic suspension, prosthetic liner, vacuum, and prosthesis. The results were refined by vacuum socket or vacuum assisted suspension or sub-atmospheric suspension. Study design, research instrument, sample size, and outcome measures were reviewed. An online questionnaire was also designed and distributed worldwide among professionals and prosthetists (www.ispoint.org, OANDP-L, LinkedIn, personal email). FINDINGS: 26 articles were published from 2001 to March 2016. The number of participants averaged 7 (SD=4) for transtibial and 6 (SD=6) for transfemoral amputees. Most studies evaluated the short-term effects of vacuum systems by measuring stump volume changes, gait parameters, pistoning, interface pressures, satisfaction, balance, and wound healing. 155 professionals replied to the questionnaire and supported results from the literature. Elevated vacuum systems may have some advantages over the other suspension systems, but may not be appropriate for all people with limb loss. INTERPRETATION: Elevated vacuum suspension could improve comfort and quality of life for people with limb loss. However, future investigations with larger sample sizes are needed to provide strong statistical conclusions and to evaluate long-term effects of these systems.
BACKGROUND: An optimal suspension system can improve comfort and quality of life in people with limb loss. To guide practice on prosthetic vacuum suspension systems, assessment of the current evidence and professional opinion are required. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were explored to find related articles. Search terms were amputees, artificial limb, prosthetic suspension, prosthetic liner, vacuum, and prosthesis. The results were refined by vacuum socket or vacuum assisted suspension or sub-atmospheric suspension. Study design, research instrument, sample size, and outcome measures were reviewed. An online questionnaire was also designed and distributed worldwide among professionals and prosthetists (www.ispoint.org, OANDP-L, LinkedIn, personal email). FINDINGS: 26 articles were published from 2001 to March 2016. The number of participants averaged 7 (SD=4) for transtibial and 6 (SD=6) for transfemoral amputees. Most studies evaluated the short-term effects of vacuum systems by measuring stump volume changes, gait parameters, pistoning, interface pressures, satisfaction, balance, and wound healing. 155 professionals replied to the questionnaire and supported results from the literature. Elevated vacuum systems may have some advantages over the other suspension systems, but may not be appropriate for all people with limb loss. INTERPRETATION: Elevated vacuum suspension could improve comfort and quality of life for people with limb loss. However, future investigations with larger sample sizes are needed to provide strong statistical conclusions and to evaluate long-term effects of these systems.
Authors: Robert T Youngblood; Brian J Hafner; Joseph M Czerniecki; Jacob T Brzostowski; Katheryn J Allyn; Joan E Sanders Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.242
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
Authors: Devaveena Dey; Nicholas G Fischer; Andrea H Dragon; Elsa Ronzier; Isha Mutreja; David T Danielson; Cole J Homer; Jonathan A Forsberg; Joan E Bechtold; Conrado Aparicio; Thomas A Davis Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: Katherine R Schoepp; Jonathon S Schofield; David Home; Michael R Dawson; Edmond Lou; McNiel Keri; Paul D Marasco; Jacqueline S Hebert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.240