Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39468101›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

A clinical comparison of a digital versus conventional design methodology for transtibial prosthetic interfaces.

Duncan R C Lee, Xingbang Yang, Francesca Riccio-Ackerman, Beatriz Alemón, Mariana Ballesteros-Escamilla, Dana Solav, Stuart R Lipsitz, Kevin M Moerman, Christina I Meyer, Aaron M Jaeger and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Duncan R C Lee *Media Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. drclee@media.mit.edu.
Xingbang Yang *Media Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Francesca Riccio-AckermanMedia Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Beatriz AlemónTecnológico de Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Mariana Ballesteros-EscamillaTecnológico de Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Dana SolavMedia Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Stuart R LipsitzCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.
Kevin M MoermanMedia Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Christina I MeyerMedia Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Aaron M JaegerMedia Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Joel C HuegelTecnológico de Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico. jhuegel@tec.mx.
Hugh M HerrMedia Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. hherr@media.mit.edu.

Funding

Computational Design, Fabrication, and Evaluation of Optimized Patient-Specific Transtibial Prosthetic SocketsR01EB024531 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI HERR, HUGH M · 2017 to 2019
$1.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB024531NIH HHS 5R01EB024531-03State Council of Science and Technology of Jalisco (COECYTJAL) 6986-2018
6 · The paper itself

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 ([Formula: see text]) decrease in pain is demonstrated when walking on the novel interfaces compared to the conventional. Standing pressure data show a significant decrease in pressure on novel interfaces at the anterior distal tibia ([Formula: see text]), with no significant difference at other measured locations. Thermal results show no statistically significant difference related to skin temperature. Questionnaire feedback shows improved comfort on novel interfaces on posterior and medial sides while standing and the medial side while walking. Study results support the hypothesis that the novel digital approach improves comfort outcomes compared to the evaluated conventional method. The digital interface design methodology also has the potential to provide benefits in design time, repeatability, and cost.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsProsthesis DesignTibiaAdultAmputeesFemaleGaitHumansMaleMiddle AgedWalking3D printingComfortCustomDigital designFEA-based optimizationProsthetics

Identifiers

PMID39468101
PMCPMC11519600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.