This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ. Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: Ischial containment versus brimless. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1241–52. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Transfemoral sockets with vacuum- assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: Ischial containment versus brimless Jason T. Kahle, MSMS, CPO, FAAOP; M. Jason Highsmith, PT, DPT, PhD, CP, FAAOP
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ. Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: Ischial containment versus brimless. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1241–52. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Aim – Investigate effect of brimless vs ischial ramus containment (IRC) prosthetic sockets when using vacuum-assisted suspension (VAS) on persons with unilateral transfemoral amputation (TFA). Relevance – Prosthetic socket is most important aspect of prosthesis. Connects person with amputation’s residual limb to components and ground during stance.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ. Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: Ischial containment versus brimless. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1241–52. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Method Design: – Randomized crossover with 2 d accommodation. Participants: – 9 people with unilateral TFA. Interventions: – IRC VAS and brimless VAS sockets. Main outcome measures: – Coronal hip angle and vertical and lateral socket movement as measured by X-ray. – Skin pressure measured by Tekscan. – Preference measured subjectively.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ. Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: Ischial containment versus brimless. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1241–52. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Results Brimless design was statistically equivalent to IRC in all coronal hip angles and vertical and lateral socket displacement. Peak/stance mean pressure in medial proximal aspect of socket: – 322 mmHG in IRC. – 190 mmHg in brimless condition. Except for medial proximal pressure, no other measures reached statistical significance. All subjects found brimless design more comfortable than IRC short-term.
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ. Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, contact pressure, and preference: Ischial containment versus brimless. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1241–52. Slideshow Project DOI: /JRRD JSP Conclusion Brimless VAS socket design may be clinically viable choice for people with TFA.