Article

The purpose of this study was to find the scientific evidence pertaining to
various transfemoral suspension systems to provide selection criteria for
clinicians. To this end, databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect
were explored. The following key words, as well as their combinations and
synonyms, were used for the search: transfemoral prosthesis, prosthetic
suspension, lower limb prosthesis, above-knee prosthesis, prosthetic liner,
transfemoral, and prosthetic socket. The study design, research instrument,
sampling method, outcome measures, and protocols of articles were reviewed. On
the basis of the selection criteria, 16 articles (11 prospective studies and 5
surveys) were reviewed. The main causes of reluctance to prosthesis, aside from
energy expenditure, were socket-related problems such as discomfort,
perspiration, and skin problems. Osseointegration was a suspension option, yet it
is rarely applied because of several drawbacks, such as extended rehabilitation
process, risk for fracture, and infection along with excessive cost. In
conclusion, no clinical evidence was found as a "standard" system of suspension
and socket design for all transfemoral amputees. However, among various
suspension systems for transfemoral amputees, the soft insert or double socket
was favored by most users in terms of function and comfort.

Langue : ANGLAIS