Background: The most crucial aspect of a prosthesis is the socket, as it will directly determine gait stability and quality. The current standard of care ischial ramus containment socket is reported to increase coronal stability through gait; however, socket discomfort is the primary complaint among prosthetic users. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare ischial ramus containment to alternatives in the transfemoral amputee population. All subjects were fit with three different sockets: traditional ischial ramus containment, a dynamic socket, and a sub-ischial. In this study, authors hypothesized socket skeletal motion would be equivalent across interventions. Study Design: Single-blind, repeated-measures, three-period randomized crossover clinical trial. Methods: Outcome measures were socket comfort score and skeletal motion, viewed coronally with X-ray measuring the position of the skeleton in relationship to the socket in full weight-bearing and full un-loading. Results: The mean age was 38.2 and mean Amputee Mobility Predictor score was 40. Mean vertical movement, horizontal movement, single limb prosthetic stance, mean femoral adduction in swing and stance, and median socket comfort score were not statistically different. Conclusion: The socket design did not significantly effect skeletal motion and socket comfort. All socket designs are suitable depending on the patient-centric preferences and prosthetist skill set. Clinical relevance The comfort of the standard of care transfemoral amputation socket has been widely reported as problematic. A comparison of alternative designs in a controlled clinical trial environment will assist the clinician in understanding the impact of design regarding skeletal motion and comfort. Users could benefit from alternatives applied in clinical practice.

Background: There are alternative transfemoral (TF) socket interface designs that have not been compared with the standard of care, ischial ramus containment (IRC). The interface directly affects performance. Objectives: To compare 3 TF interface designs, IRC, dynamic socket (DS), and subischial (Sub-I), regarding gait, balance, mobility, and preference. The authors hypothesized that these more active users may experience gait, mobility, and preference benefits from the less intrusive DS and Sub-I interface designs. Study Design: Single-blind, repeated-measures, 3-period randomized controlled crossover clinical trial. Methods: People with unilateral TF amputation with 1 year or longer prosthesis use experience, independent community ambulatory status, 18 to 60 years of age, of any race or ethnicity, with a body mass of 45 to 125 kg, and with a self-reported ability to walk for 20 minutes continuously were included in the study. Each participant was fit in all 3 interface designs. Results: Thirteen participants completed the clinical trial. Velocity, cadence, mobility, and balance were not statistically different between the 3 socket conditions. The DS demonstrated significantly greater symmetry in swing, stance, single support percentage, and toe angle compared with IRC and Sub-I. Sixty days after study completion, 7 participants changed interfaces, trending away from IRC. Conclusions: Large differences were not observed. Small differences in spatiotemporal gait measures combined with patient preference may make a meaningful difference to individual patients and should be considered.