ArticleCanadian prosthetics & orthotics journal2025
A biofidelic mock residual limb for prosthetic socket testing.
Article in Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating prosthetic socket fit and function relies on accurately simulating load transfer between the residual limb and the socket. This limb can be either real (of a study participant) or a mock residual limb that simulates in vivo properties. Mock limbs minimize reliance on resource-intensive clinical trials; however, most are static in size, limiting their use in testing clinical outcomes like socket adjustability.
objectiveTo design and validate a biofidelic mock limb, capable of real-time, controllable volume adjustments of up to ±5% limb volume. METHODOLOGY: Water-filled bladders were embedded within a transtibial residual limb model made of a dual-durometer urethane composition, mimicking deep and soft tissue. An Arduino-controlled syringe system was used to actuate volume adjustments. The method was validated through repeatability tests at different rates of volume change, cycling through expansion, holding at maximum volume, and contraction. Volume change was quantified by measuring interfacial pressures between the limb and a static socket.
findingsThe limb was fabricated with readily available materials for less than CAD 400. Volume change rate had minimal effect on interfacial pressure throughout the testing cycle, and minimal hysteresis was found between expansion and contraction periods. Repeatability was high, with a coefficient of variation of normalized pressure remaining below 10.4% over three repeated tests.
conclusionThe proposed biofidelic limb was validated for its ability to mimic volume change in a transtibial residual limb. The design enables easy replication or customization to simulate different limb physiologies and anatomies. The limb allows for controllable bench-top testing during prototyping of adjustable sockets or other devices, thus bringing devices to clinical use sooner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.