4.1 Article

Does temporary socket removal affect residual limb fluid volume of trans-tibial amputees?

Journal

PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 320-328

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0309364614568413

Keywords

Volume management; bioimpedance analysis; accommodation; residual limb shape

Funding

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health [R01HD060585]
  2. Department of Defense CDMRP Orthopaedic Research Program [W81XWH-10-1-1035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Lower-limb prosthesis users typically experience residual limb volume losses over the course of the day that can detrimentally affect socket fit. Objectives: To determine whether temporarily doffing the prosthesis encouraged residual limb fluid volume recovery and whether the recovered fluid was maintained. Study Design: Experimental design. Methods: Residual limb fluid volume was monitored on 16 participants in three test sessions each. Participants conducted six cycles of resting/standing/walking. Between the third and fourth cycles, participants sat for 30min with the prosthesis and liner: donned (ON), the prosthesis doffed but the liner donned (LINER), or the prosthesis and liner doffed (OFF). Results: Percentage fluid volume gain and retention were greatest for the OFF condition followed by the LINER condition. Participants experienced fluid volume losses for the ON condition. Conclusion: Doffing the prosthesis or both the prosthesis and liner during rest improved residual limb fluid volume retention compared with leaving the prosthesis and liner donned. Clinical relevance Practitioners should advise patients who undergo high daily limb volume losses to consider temporarily doffing their prosthesis. Fluid volume retention during subsequent activity will be highest if both the prosthesis and liner are doffed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available