Abstract
Objective: To compare gait biomechanics of the Northwestern University Flexible Sub-Ischial Vacuum (NU-FlexSIV) Socket to the ischial containment (IC) socket. Design: Randomized crossover trial with 2, 7-week periods. Setting: Private prosthetic clinics and university research laboratory. Participants: A total of 30 enrolled (n=30); 25 participants completed the study with full (n=18) or partial data (n=7). Interventions: Two custom-fabricated sockets (IC and NU-FlexSIV), worn full-time for 7 weeks, with testing at 1, 4, and 7 weeks after socket delivery. Main Outcome Measures: Gait analyses were conducted at 1, 4, and 7 weeks post socket delivery. Differences between sockets in selected gait variables related to hip motion and coronal plane socket stability were assessed. Results: For participants with data for both sockets at week 7 (n=19), there were no significant differences in any gait variables between sockets at self-selected normal walking speed. However, when all participants and all study time points were assessed (n=25), there was a significant main effect of socket (P=.013), with prosthetic side sagittal plane hip range of motion being significantly greater for the NU-FlexSIV Socket at self-selected normal walking speed. There were no other significant effects. Conclusions: The results suggest that, compared to the IC socket, the NU-FlexSIV Socket did not alter gait biomechanics related to hip motion and coronal plane socket stability in people with unilateral transfemoral amputation.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1515-1523 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation |
| Volume | 103 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Aug 2022 |
Funding
Supported by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, through the Peer Reviewed Orthopedic Research Program under Award No. W81XWH-15-1-0708. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense. Research reported in this publication was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant Number UL1TR001422. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The sponsors had no role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication. We thank Lilly Tran, MS, Vasanth Subramanian, MS, and Jessica Yohay, BS, for assisting with data collection and processing and Thomas Schnitzer, MD, PhD, for assistance with clinical trial conduct. We also thank all of the prosthetists who referred participants to the study and the participants who gave of their time to take part. a. Silicone liner, FlexEVA, foot with Unity pump; Össur. b. Motion analysis system and OrthoTrak software; Motion Analysis Corporation. c. SPSS; IBM. Supported by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, through the Peer Reviewed Orthopedic Research Program under Award No. W81XWH-15-1-0708. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense. Research reported in this publication was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant Number UL1TR001422. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The sponsors had no role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Keywords
- Artificial limbs
- Gait analysis
- Leg
- Rehabilitation
- Treatment outcome
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
- Rehabilitation