Daily volume loss of the stump leads to a poor fit of the prosthetic socket. A method of preventing this volume loss and maintaining a good fit was developed. A vacuum (-78 kPa) was drawn on the expulsion port of a total surface-bearing suction socket to hold the liner tightly against the socket. Stump volume of 10 trans-tibial amputees was measured prior to and immediately after a 30 minute walk with normal and vacuum socket conditions. Under the normal condition, the limb lost an average of 6.5% of its volume during the walk. In contrast, with the liner held tightly by vacuum, the limb gained an average of 3.7% in volume. It is believed that the difference observed between conditions resulted from a greater negative pressure developed during the swing phase of gait with the vacuum condition. X-rays revealed that the limb and tibia pistoned 4 mm and 7 mm less, respectively, under the vacuum condition. The combination of reduced pistoning and maintenance of volume is thought to account for the more symmetrical gait observed with the vacuum.

A comprehensive error analysis was performed on the impulse method. To evaluate the potential errors, jump height was recalculated after alteringoneof the measurement or calculation techniquaes while leaving the others unchanged, and then comparing it to the reference jump height (best estimate of true jump height). Measurement techniques introduced the greatest error. Low-pass filters with cutoff frequencies < 580 Hz led to systematic underestimations of jump height, ≤26%. Low sampling frequencies (<1,080 Hz) caused jump height to be underestimated by ≤4.4%. Computational methods introduced less error. Selecting takeoff too early by using an elevated threshold caused jump height to be overestimated by ≤1.5%. Other potential sources of computational error: (a) duration of body weight averaging period; (b) method of integration; (c) gravity constant; (d) start of integration; (e) duration of offset averaging period; and (f) sample duration, introduced < 1% error to the calculated jump height. Employing the recommended guidelines presented in this study reduces total error to ≤ ±0.76%. Failing to follow the guidelines can lead to average errors as large as 26%.

No abstract

Gains in stump volume have been documented in trans-tibial amputees while walking in custom made under-sized, total surface-bearing, vacuum-assisted sockets (Board et al., 2001). These gains raised doubts as to whether the sockets were truly under-sized and concerns that using an over-sized socket with vacuum-assist could lead to swelling, resulting, in discomfort or pain. The purposes of the present study were to determine if: (a) walking in a vacuum-assisted socket causes the stump to retain or gain volume in excess of the available socket volume and (b) the resulting increase in stump volume with an over-sized socket causes discomfort, pain, and/or the skin to redden. The results of this study showed the stump retained or gained volume in excess of the available socket volume while walking in vacuum-assisted sockets of various sizes. The stump lost less volume than predicted, or gained volume, in under-sized sockets. It also gained more volume than predicted in over-sized sockets. No discomfort, pain, or skin reddening, resulting from the volume gain was reported by any of the subjects after walking in an over-sized socket. This change in fluid balance towards a net gain supports the findings by Board et al. (2001) that vacuum-assist ensures a good fit during the day in ambulatory trans-tibial traumatic amputees with mature stumps.

A common mode of limb suspension for transtibial amputees is the pin liner/shuttle lock system. Despite its popularity, some clinicians question its use because of observed daily and chronic changes to the residual limb. For this study, we measured limb interface pressures during ambulation with pin and suction suspension systems. No pressure differences were seen between the modes of suspension during stance phase. However, during swing phase, pin suspension maintained an average occlusive compressive pressure of 6.7 kPa on the proximal tissues, as compared to the subocclusive pressure of 1.1 kPa with suction suspension. Simultaneously, pin suspension elevated the peak magnitude of suction to -39.5 kPa at the distal residual limb, compared to -26.1 kPa with suction suspension. During swing phase, the pin liner squeezes proximally while creating a large suction distally on the residual limb and is the likely cause of daily and chronic skin changes observed in pin users.