Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39071770›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024

Insights into the spectrum of transtibial prosthetic socket design from expert clinicians and their digital records.

A S Dickinson, J W Steer, C Rossides, L E Diment, F M Mbithi, J L Bramley, D Hannett, J Blinova, Z Tankard, P R Worsley

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06597266 (Feasibility Study on Using Smart Templates, That Link Rectification Approaches to Particular Patient Characteristics, for Socket Fitting), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

NCT06597266 nacompletednot on this map

Feasibility Study on Using Smart Templates, That Link Rectification Approaches to Particular Patient Characteristics, for Socket Fitting

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of SouthamptonRan2022 to 2023Enrolled17ConditionsTranstibial Amputation, ProstheticArmsSmart template - designed prosthetic check socket, Clinician-designed prosthetic check socket
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

A S DickinsonFaculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
J W SteerFaculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
C RossidesFaculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
L E DimentFaculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
F M MbithiFaculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
J L BramleyFaculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
D HannettOpcare Ltd., Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
J BlinovaOpcare Ltd., Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Z TankardOpcare Ltd., Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
P R WorsleyFaculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Transtibial prosthetic sockets are often grouped into patella tendon bearing (PTB) or total surface bearing (TSB) designs, but many variations in rectifications are used to apply these principles to an individual's personalised socket. Prosthetists currently have little objective evidence to assist them as they make design choices. Aims: To compare rectifications made by experienced prosthetists across a range of patient demographics and limb shapes to improve understanding of socket design strategies. Methodology: 163 residual limb surface scans and corresponding CAD/CAM sockets were analysed for 134 randomly selected individuals in a UK prosthetics service. This included 142 PTB and 21 TSB designs. The limb and socket scans were compared to determine the location and size of rectifications. Rectifications were compiled for PTB and TSB designs, and associations between different rectification sizes were assessed using a variety of methods including linear regression, kernel density estimation (KDE) and a Naïve Bayes (NB) classification. Results: Differences in design features were apparent between PTB and TSB sockets, notably for paratibial carves, gross volume reduction and distal end elongation. However, socket designs varied across a spectrum, with most showing a hybrid of the PTB and TSB principles. Pairwise correlations were observed between the size of some rectifications (e.g., paratibial carves; fibular head build and gross volume reduction). Conversely, the patellar tendon carve depth was not associated significantly with any other rectification, indicating its relative design insensitivity. The Naïve Bayes classifier produced design patterns consistent with expert clinician practice. For example, subtle local rectifications were associated with a large volume reduction (i.e., a TSB-like design), whereas more substantial local rectifications (i.e., a PTB-like design) were associated with a low volume reduction. Clinical implications: This study demonstrates how we might learn from design records to support education and enhance evidence-based socket design. The method could be used to predict design features for newly presenting patients, based on categorisations of their limb shape and other demographics, implemented alongside expert clinical judgement as smart CAD/CAM design templates.

Indexed as

CAD/CAMexpert systemknowledge-based systemmachine learningprosthetic limb designPTBTSB

Identifiers

PMID39071770
PMCPMC11272479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.