Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byErick Casey Modified over 8 years ago
1
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003JSP 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
2
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003JSP 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.
3
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003JSP 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.
4
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003JSP 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.
5
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0003JSP Conclusion Brimless VAS socket design may be clinically viable choice for people with TFA.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.