It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
A transtibial prosthetic interface typically comprises a compliant liner and an outer rigid socket. The preponderance of today’s conventional liners are mass produced in standard sizes, and conventional socket design is labor-intensive and artisanal, lacking clear scientific rationale. This work tests the clinical efficacy of a novel, physics-based digital design framework to create custom prosthetic liner-socket interfaces. In this investigation, we hypothesize that the novel digital approach will improve comfort outcomes compared to a conventional method of liner-socket design. The digital design framework generates custom transtibial prosthetic interfaces starting from MRI or CT image scans of the residual limb. The interface design employs FEA to simulate limb deformation under load. Interfaces are fabricated for 9 limbs from 8 amputees (1 bilateral). Testing compares novel and conventional interfaces across four assessments: 5-min walking trial, thermal imaging, 90-s standing pressure trial, and an evaluation questionnaire. Outcome measures include antalgic gait criterion, skin surface pressures, skin temperature changes, and direct questionnaire feedback. Antalgic gait is compared via a repeated measures linear mixed model while the other assessments are compared via a non-parametric Wilcoxon sign-rank test. A statistically significant (
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786); Massachusetts Institute of Technology, K. Lisa Yang Center for Bionics, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786); Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786)
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786); Massachusetts Institute of Technology, K. Lisa Yang Center for Bionics, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786)
3 Tecnológico de Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico (GRID:grid.419886.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2203 4701)
4 Tecnológico de Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico (GRID:grid.419886.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2203 4701); Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Medical Robotics and Biosignal Laboratory and CIDETEC, Mexico City, Mexico (GRID:grid.418275.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2165 8782)
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786)
6 Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.62560.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 0378 8294)