Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37926807›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Adjustable prosthetic sockets: a systematic review of industrial and research design characteristics and their justifications.

Michael Baldock, Nicolaas Pickard, Michael Prince, Sarah Kirkwood, Alix Chadwell, David Howard, Alex Dickinson, Laurence Kenney, Niamh Gill, Sam Curtin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A biofidelic mock residual limb for prosthetic socket testing.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Michael Baldock *School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK. m.e.baldock@edu.salford.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7678-8549
Nicolaas Pickard *School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK. n.p.pickard@edu.salford.ac.uk.ORCID 0009-0008-6068-1545
Michael PrinceSchool of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Sarah KirkwoodSchool of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Alix ChadwellSchool of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9101-5202
David HowardSchool of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1738-0698
Alex DickinsonSchool of Engineering at the University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9647-1944
Laurence KenneySchool of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2164-3892
Niamh GillSchool of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9488-8896
Sam CurtinSchool of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Salford, UK. s.l.curtin@salford.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prosthetic socket is a key component that influences prosthesis satisfaction, with a poorly fitting prosthetic socket linked to prosthesis abandonment and reduced community participation. This paper reviews adjustable socket designs, as they have the potential to improve prosthetic fit and comfort through accommodating residual limb volume fluctuations and alleviating undue socket pressure.

methodsSystematic literature and patent searches were conducted across multiple databases to identify articles and patents that discussed adjustable prosthetic sockets. The patents were used to find companies, organisations, and institutions who currently sell adjustable sockets or who are developing devices.

results50 literature articles and 63 patents were identified for inclusion, representing 35 different designs used in literature and 16 commercially available products. Adjustable sockets are becoming more prevalent with 73% of publications (literature, patents, and news) occurring within the last ten years. Two key design characteristics were identified: principle of adjustability (inflatable bladders, moveable panels, circumferential adjustment, variable length), and surface form (conformable, rigid multi-DOF, and rigid single DOF). Inflatable bladders contributed to 40% of literature used designs with only one identified commercially available design (n = 16) using this approach. Whereas circumferential adjustment designs covered 75% of identified industry designs compared to only 36% of literature devices. Clinical studies were generally small in size and only 17.6% of them assessed a commercially available socket. DISCUSSION: There are clear differences in the design focus taken by industry and researchers, with justification for choice of design and range of adjustment often being unclear. Whilst comfort is often reported as improved with an adjustable socket, the rationale behind this is not often discussed, and small study sizes reduce the outcome viability. Many adjustable sockets lack appropriate safety features to limit over or under tightening, which may present a risk of tissue damage or provide inadequate coupling, affecting function and satisfaction. Furthermore, the relationship between design and comfort or function are rarely investigated and remain a significant gap in the literature. Finally, this review highlights the need for improved collaboration between academia and industry, with a strong disconnect observed between commercial devices and published research studies.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsResearch DesignAmputation StumpsExtremitiesHumansProsthesis DesignAdjustable socketAdjustable-volumeArtificial limbProsthesis designProstheticProsthetic interfaceProsthetic socketResidual limbSocketSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37926807
PMCPMC10626671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.