Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure

Klute, Glenn K.; Bates, Katherine J; Berge, Jocelyn S.; Biggs, Wayne; King, Charles

doi:10.1682/jrrd.2015.06.0121

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The VASS socket fitted slightly better, as measured by pistoning. Klute (2016) [ 79 ] Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure 5 participants (All BK) StepWatch (P. Ankle) Activity level – steps (2 weeks) Measure differences in activity levels, residual-limb skin temperatures, perspiration accumulation and expulsion, and subjective experiences between the dynamic air exchange (DAE) prosthesis and a standard-of-care total surface bearing suction socket. During the 7-day acclimation, no difference in step activity levels was detected ( p = 0.22).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 27 papers on comparing interventions for lower-limb prosthesis users mostly compared prosthetic components, rather than comparing lifestyle interventions. Studies compared different sockets [ 66 , 79 , 84 ], suspension systems [ 68 , 78 ], knees [ 12 , 64 , 72 – 74 , 87 ], pylons [ 65 ] and feet [ 63 , 70 , 76 , 82 , 83 , 88 , 99 ]. One study compared knees and pylons [ 77 ], and one compared torsion and rigid adapters [ 85 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell

Diment

Micó-Amigo

et al. 2020

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Understanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper-and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring, with particular focus on low-resource settings. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis users during daily-living. Results: Sixty lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lowerlimb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm. Conclusions: Activity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user's requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell

Diment

Micó-Amigo

et al. 2020

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 While it would be challenging to increase the conductivity of the base elastomers, some groups have explored the use of air channels within sockets 36 and the use of vacuum to remove perspiration. 38…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of Prosthetic Liner Products for People with Transtibial Amputation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Typical practitioners choose from among only two to three products when selecting liners for their patients. A lack of comparable objective information about similarities and differences among elastomeric liner products may be part of the reason. Methods Commonly used, commercially available polyurethane, silicone, and thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) liners were tested for their compressive, shear, tensile, and volumetric elasticities as well as their coefficients of friction (CoFs) and thermal conductivities. Results Polyurethane and silicone liners tended to be stiffer in compression and shear than TPE liners. Fabric backings contributed primarily to increased tensile elasticity (and thus reduced pistoning). Polyurethane liners demonstrated relatively low CoFs, whereas silicone and TPE liners had higher CoFs and wider ranges. All materials tested were essentially incompressible. Thermal conductivities of all materials were comparable and similar to that of leather. Conclusions Polyurethane liners are softer and less sticky than 16 years ago, and TPE liners have higher tensile stiffness than previously. A stiff fabric backing can increase tensile stiffness by more than 200%. Compressive stiffness may be used to characterize a liner’s ability to flow. Elastomeric liners move heat almost exclusively via conduction.

show abstract

“…The 27 papers on comparing interventions for lower-limb prosthesis users mostly compared prosthetic components, rather than comparing lifestyle interventions. Studies compared different sockets, 66,79,84 suspension systems, 68,78 knees, 12,64,[72][73][74]87 pylons 65 and feet. 63,70,76,82,83,88,100 One study compared knees and pylons, 77 and one compared torsion and rigid adapters.…”

Section: Figure 1 Flow Chart Of Selection and Sorting Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Chadwell¹,

Diment²,

Amigo³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUnderstanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper- and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis-users during daily-living.Results60 lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lower-limb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm.ConclusionsActivity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user’s requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

show abstract

Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Characterization of Prosthetic Liner Products for People with Transtibial Amputation

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About