BACKGROUND: Excessive sweating of the residual limb has a substantial effect on the daily activities of people with lower limb amputation. Prosthetic liners offer protection and comfort to sensitive areas but often exacerbate perspiration. They act as insulators, trapping sweat on the skin’s surface to the detriment of skin health. Recently, liners with perforations have been developed, allowing the moisture to escape. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of such liners. METHODS: A sample group of 13 patients with unilateral transtibial amputation, who wore a perforated liner (PL) as part of their current prescription, was compared to 20 control patients who wore non-perforated liners (NPL). During their routine appointments, they completed a survey of scientifically validated outcome measures relating to their limb health, pain and the impact on daily life over a 12-month period. RESULTS: Patients using the PL had healthier residual limbs, reporting higher scores on questions relating to limb health, experiencing fewer skin issues (p<0.001) and estimating a 61.8% lower rating in perceived sweat (p=0.004). Perhaps consequentially, there was a lower incidence of residual (p=0.012) and phantom (p=0.001) limb pain when compared to the control group. The prevalence of individual issues affecting the residual limbs of PL users was also lower. Of the issues that remained, only 23% were attributed to sweating in PL users, compared to 49% for the NPL group (p=0.066). PL users missed fewer days of work in the year (2.4 vs 11.6, p=0.267) and were also limited on fewer days (1.4 vs 75.4, p=0.009). CONCLUSION: The use of perforated liners shows much promise within prosthetic care, significantly improving the health of the residual limb. The observed effects on perceived sweat reduction, residual skin health, pain levels and patient limitation suggest that perforated liners are highly beneficial to patients. Layman's Abstract Individuals with amputation often find that they sweat more as they exert more energy when walking and because the total surface area of their body is reduced. Silicone liners are used to cushion the residual limb and as a way of attaching a prosthetic leg, but they act as insulators causing the residual limb to get hot and sweaty. The material isn’t breathable, so the sweat is not able to escape, instead staying on the skin’s surface and causing discomfort or leading to the development of skin conditions. Liners that have small holes in them allow sweat to travel away from the body and preserve skin health. Patients who wore a perforated liner, as well as patients who wore a liner without holes, filled in questionnaires about their experience, the results of which were compared. Generally, patients who wore the perforated liner had healthier skin on their residual limbs and experienced fewer skin conditions than the other patient group. Out of the issues they did experience, fewer were attributed to sweating. The study group experienced less frequent pain both in their physical and phantom limbs. They also considered themselves less limited by their prosthetic device and missed fewer days of work. These observations suggest that perforated liners are highly beneficial to patients within the prosthetic field. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/34610/26579 How To Cite: Davies K.C, McGrath M, Savage Z, Stenson A, Moser D, Zahedi S. Using perforated liners to combat the detrimental effects of excessive sweating in lower limb prosthesis users. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2020;Volume 3, Issue 2, No.1. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v3i2.34610 Corresponding Author: K.C Davies, Blatchford Group, Unit D Antura, Bond Close, Basingstoke, RG24 8PZ, UK.E-mail: katherine.davies@blatchford.co.ukORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2933-4365

While all lower limb prosthesis walkers have a high risk of tripping and/or falling, above knee prosthesis users are reported to fall more frequently. Recognising this, engineers designed microprocessor knees (MPK) to help mitigate these risks, but to what extent these devices reduce this disparity between above and below knee users is unclear. A service review was carried out in a prosthetic limb centre regarding the frequency of trips and falls in the previous four weeks. Data from unilateral, community ambulators were extracted. Ordered logistic regressions were applied to investigate whether MPKs mitigated the increased risk of trips and falls for prosthetic knee users, compared to below knee prosthesis users. Socio-demographics (sex, age), prosthesis (prosthesis type, years of use), health (comorbidities, vision, contralateral limb status, medication), and physical function (use of additional walking aids, activity level) were included as covariates. Of the 315 participants in the analysis, 57.5% reported tripping and 20.3% reported falling. Non-microprocessor prosthetic knee (non-MPK) users were shown to trip significantly more than below knee prosthesis users (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.17–3.28). Other covariates showing a significant association included contralateral limb injuries (OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.15–3.18) and using an additional walking aid (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.13–3.50). Non-MPK users were also shown to fall significantly more than below knee prosthesis users (OR = 3.34, 95% CI = 1.73–6.45), with no other covariates showing a significant association. MPK users did not show an increased frequency of trips (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.33–1.64) or falls (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.18–2.62), compared to below knee prosthesis users. Of those who tripped at least once in the previous four weeks, those using a non-MPK (OR = 2.73, 95% CI = 1.30–5.74) presented an increased frequency of falling. These findings provide evidence to suggest that the use of MPKs reduces the difference in falls risk between above knee and below knee prosthesis users, providing justification for their provision.