Amputee’s Satisfaction with Two Different Transfemoral Suspension Systems and the Experienced Problems Hossein Gholizadeh 1,2, Noor Azuan Abu Osman 1, Arezoo Eshraghi 1,2, Mojtaba Kamyab 2, Hassan Saeedi 2, Sadeeq Ali 1, Morteza Mohammadi 2 1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia 2 Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

 Appropriate prosthetic suspension system can enhance patient’s satisfaction, and facilitate the rehabilitation process. Clinicians rely on their experience and the technical information provided by manufacturer to choose appropriate liners for their patients.

The main intention of this study was to compare the Iceross Seal-In ® liner with traditional suction socket with regards to patients’ satisfaction, and to investigate any problems they experienced through the use of a Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ).

In order to measure user’s satisfaction with the two suspension systems and to identify any problems associated with prosthetic use, a questionnaire survey was conducted with 30 transfemoral amputees (traumatic) in Janbazan Medical and Engineering Research Center (JMERC), Tehran, Iran.

All the amputees involved in the study had used a suction socket (SS) suspension system with their prosthesis for a period of ten years or more (mean, 23.7, SD, 5.3). Prior to socket replacement, the subjects were asked to complete a PEQ questionnaire that measured their satisfaction levels with their current prosthesis. Following this, their existing suspension system was replaced with a new suspension system, which is known as the Seal-In ® liner socket suspension.

In order to study the effect of different suspension systems on, satisfaction of amputees who wore lower-limb prosthetic devices, a number of elements of PEQ were utilized. The questionnaires employed within this study were based on the Persian version of this questionnaire

A descriptive analysis was performed on the demographic information of the amputees. To analyze the satisfaction and perceived problems related to the use of the Seal-In suspension and suction socket suspension systems, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) test was utilized to compute the mean differences between the questionnaire scores. All data analysis was implemented using SPSS 16.0.

The level of patient’s satisfaction between the Seal-In ® liner suspension system and the suction suspension (SS) system differed significantly (p<0.05), except for satisfaction while walking and when navigating stairs

A significant difference in the mean scores pertaining to problems/complaints was noticed among the two suspension systems. For the Seal-In ® liner suspension, the overall mean problems/complaints on a point numerical rating scale was (SD=7.302) and for the suction suspension it was (SD=14.92) (Table 4).

Descriptive Statistics Suspension system MeanStd. DeviationN fitting satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total donning and doffing satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total sitting satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total walking satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total uneven walking satisfationSeal-In ® SU Total stair satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total suspension satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total cosmetic satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total overal satisfactionSeal-In ® SU Total

 An amputee’s rehabilitation is a challenging procedure that requires expertise, especially in the selection of prosthetic components based on the real needs of the amputee. Prosthetic satisfaction is a multi-factorial issue. Some of these factors are level of amputation, prosthetic alignment, prosthetic components, prosthetists’ skills, stump condition, amputee’s level of activity and socket fit

 Few studies have compared the outcome of different suspension systems on transfemoral amputee satisfaction, and even fewer have studied patient’s satisfaction with regard to other prosthetic components, such as the knee joint [28]. It was, therefore, challenging to compare the results of this study with those that had been conducted by other researches.

 As anticipated, the results of the study revealed a significant difference between the problems and complaints identified by patients who utilized the two different suspension systems as the amputees experienced fewer problems with the Seal-In liner. Furthermore, the Seal-In liner promoted increased comfort and satisfaction for the participants who were identified with higher activity levels (K3). Effortless donning and doffing does appear to have a positive effect on a patient’s experience of a prosthetic device

 One limitation of this study was the small sample size which is of particular importance for satisfaction studies. In addition to this, further research is needed to compare more suspension alternatives in order to provide a better guideline for suspension system selection. Future research should also investigate and compare the proprioception effects of various suspension systems.

 Overall this study revealed that the transfemoral subjects were more satisfied with the new the Seal-In® liner suspension system than they were with the traditional suction socket method due to the firm attachment that was created between the stump/liner and socket. Moreover, manufacturers and health care providers should constantly gain the feedback of prosthetic users and apply it to improve their products and services.

 The authors would like to special thank to  Mr. Shahram Gharib panah,  Mr. Mohamad Maghami,  Mr. Behrad Kyvan  Mr. Aghil Asadi  Mr. Reza Kabiri  And all our collogues in Janbazan Medical and Engineering Research Center (JMERC) for their help and encouragement.

 Kristinsson, Ö (1993) The ICEROSS concept: a discussion of a philosophy. Prosthet Orthot Int 17:  2. Baars E, Geertzen J (2005) Literature review of the possible advantages of silicon liner socket use in trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 29,  3. Van de Weg F, Van Der Windt D (2005) A questionnaire survey of the effect of different interface types on patient satisfaction and perceived problems among trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 29:  4. Dietzen CJ, Harshberger J, Pidikiti RD (1991) Suction sock suspension for above-knee prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot 3:  5. Carroll K, Baird JC and Binder K (2006) Transfemoral prosthetic designs. In: Carrol K and Edelstein MA (eds) Prosthetics and patient management: a comprehensive clinical approach. USA: SLACK Inc., P.  6. Klute G, Glaister B, Berge J (2010) Prosthetic liners for lower limb amputees: A review of the literature. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 34(2),  7.Lenze JF, Del Rossi J (1994) Suction socket for artificial limb. Patent , USA.  8.Schuch C (1992) Transfemoral amputation: prosthetic management. In: Bowker JH and Michael JW (eds) Atlas of Limb Prosthetics: Surgical, Prosthetic and Rehabilitation Principles. 2nd ed. St. Louis MO: Mosby, 509–532p.  Ali S., Abu Osman N.A., Naqshbandi M., Eshaghi A, Kamyab M., Gholizadeh H., (2012). Qualitative Study of Suspension Systems on Transtibial Patient's Satisfaction and Perceived Problems with Their Prosthetic Devices. Archive of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,2012;93: pp (ISI-Cited Publication)Qualitative Study of Suspension Systems on Transtibial Patient's Satisfaction and Perceived Problems with Their Prosthetic Devices  Baars E, Geertzen J. Literature review of the possible advantages of silicon liner socket use in trans-tibial prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 29:   Gholizadeh, H., Abu Osman, N.A., Kamyab, M., Eshraghi, A. Lúðvíksdóttir, Á.G., Wan Abas, W.A.B. Clinical evaluation of two prosthetic suspension systems in a bilateral transtibial amputee. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Oct;91(10):894-8 (ISI-Cited Publication).Clinical evaluation of two prosthetic suspension systems in a bilateral transtibial amputee  Eshraghi, A., Abu Osman, N.A., Gholizadeh, H., Karimi, M.T., Ali, S. Pistoning Assessment in Lower Limb Prosthetic Sockets. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2012; 36: (ISI-Cited Publication)Pistoning Assessment in Lower Limb Prosthetic Sockets  Ali, S., Abu Osman, N. A., Eshraghi, A., Gholizadeh, H., & Wan Abas, W. A. B. B. (2013). Interface Pressure in Transtibail Socket during Ascent and Descent Stairs and its Effect on Patient Satisfaction. Clinical Biomechanics.Interface Pressure in Transtibail Socket during Ascent and Descent Stairs and its Effect on Patient Satisfaction.  Gholizadeh, H., Abu Osman, N.A., Lúðvíksdóttir, Á.G., Eshraghi, A., Kamyab, M., Wan Abas, W.A.B. A new approach for the pistoning measurement in transtibial prosthesis. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2011; 35 (4): (ISI-Cited Publication)A new approach for the pistoning measurement in transtibial prosthesis.   Gholizadeh, H., Abu Osman, N.A., Eshraghi, A. Effect of Vacuum-assisted Socket and Pin Suspensions on Socket Fit. Archive of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2012, Vol.93(3).pp (ISI-Cited Publication)Effect of Vacuum-assisted Socket and Pin Suspensions on Socket Fit.   Gholizadeh, H., Abu Osman, N.A., Eshraghi, A., Ali, S., Sævarsson, S.K., Wan Abas, W.A.B. Transtibial prosthetic suspension: less pistoning versus easy donning and doffing, Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development. 2012, 49 (9):1321–1330. (ISI-Cited Publication)Transtibial prosthetic suspension: less pistoning versus easy donning and doffing,

 Thank you