Article
Silicone soft socket system: Its effect on the rehabilitation of geriatric patients with transfemoral amputations

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90192-2Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective: To report the effect of supplying new transfemoral amputee patients with a prosthesis with a silicone suspension/ interface system.

Patients and Design: Fifty-eight new transfemoral amputee patients were supplied with a contoured adducted trochanteric-controlled alignment method (CAT-CAM) socket (CCS) with a silicone suspension/interface system. This system is called the Icelandic roll-on silicone socket, or the ICEROSS system (IRS). A second group of 18 new amputee patients were supplied with an unlined CCS (uCCS), ie, without silicone sleeve suspension.

Measures: The IRS group was followed up at 1 year, the uCCS group at 9 months. Ambulatory capacity was investigated by first categorizing patients' prosthetic mobility into four different groups based on the distances patients were able to ambulate: 0m (wheelchair ambulation only), <100m, 100 to 500m, and >500m. The change in distance ambulated was then determined for each group for the three time intervals between admission, discharge, and follow-up.

Results: Between discharge and follow-up patients with the IRS had a significantly greater improvement (p < .001) in distance traversed than patients supplied with the uCCS. Distance traversed had been longer in the uCCS group before they were supplied with the prostheses (p < .05). Inpatient stay in the rehabilitation center was 5 days less in the group supplied with IRS (p < .05). Adjustments to the new socket had to be carried out for 67% of the uCCS group during the observation period, compared with only 21% for those using the IRS system. Satisfaction, average duration of daily use, and the use of assistive devices for gait did not differ significantly.

Conclusions: New patients with transfemoral amputations fitted with a silicone suction socket showed greater gains in distances ambulated, and adjustments to their prostheses were significantly fewer. Therefore, it is preferable to provide these sockets to geriatric amputee patients rather than CAT-CAM sockets without silicone suspension sleeves.

References (8)

  • C.H. Pritham

    Biomechanics and shape of the above-knee socket considered in light of the ischial containment concept

    Prosthet Orthot Int

    (1990)
  • C.A. Mitchell et al.

    Management of an above knee amputee with complex medical problems using the CAT-CAM prosthesis

    Phys Ther

    (1990)
  • W. Kickinger et al.

    Der CAT-CAM-Schaft bei aelteren Amputierten (The CAT-CAM Socket for the geriatric amputee)

    Med Orthop Technik

    (1993)
  • C.E. Fillauer et al.

    Evolution and development of the silicone suction socket (3S) for below-knee prostheses

    J Prosthet Orthot

    (1989)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (11)

  • Comparison of Ischial Containment and Subischial Sockets on Comfort, Function, Quality of Life, and Satisfaction With Device in Persons With Unilateral Transfemoral Amputation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

    2021, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
    Citation Excerpt :

    In a recent study, Kahle et al33 allowed participants to determine their own accommodation time to 3 different sockets (including a subischial socket), but unfortunately the accommodation times were not reported. Finally, although the sample may be considered small, to our knowledge this is the largest randomized crossover trial reported to date comparing transfemoral sockets.3,4,10,12,14,33-43 The results of this trial are limited in their generalizability to those with unilateral TFA of nonvascular origin who are relatively young and experienced prosthesis users, with relatively high levels of mobility.

  • Satisfaction and problems experienced with transfemoral suspension systems: A comparison between common suction socket and seal-in liner

    2013, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
    Citation Excerpt :

    In a prospective study, Trieb et al15 compared satisfaction with transfemoral prostheses when wearing a contour adducted trochanteric controlled-alignment socket with and without a silicone liner. They reported that with the silicone liner the socket could be used for longer hours and reduce skin trauma, resulting in enhanced quality of life.15 Similarly, participants in the current study were more satisfied with the Seal-In silicone liner and experienced less problems.

  • Transtibial prosthetic socket pistoning: Static evaluation of Seal-In <sup>®</sup> X5 and Dermo <sup>®</sup> Liner using motion analysis system

    2012, Clinical Biomechanics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Questionnaire study by Cluitmans et al. (1994), Hachisuka et al. (1998) and Datta et al. (1996) reported improved suspension in 96, 63 and 15% of their subjects with the silicon liners, respectively. Manufacturers of prosthetic components have always attempted to come up with new innovative suspension systems to lessen pistoning (Trieb et al., 1999; Wirta et al., 1990). The recent development of the prosthetic liner Seal-In® X5 by Össur (Reykjavik, Iceland), a new suction suspension liner with hypobaric sealing membrane around the silicon liner without an external sleeve or shuttle lock which increases surface contact with the socket wall, motivated us to study the effects of this new liner on prosthetic suspension.

  • Prosthetic Treatment in Elderly Population

    2018, Practical Issues in Geriatrics
View all citing articles on Scopus

No commercial party having a direct or indirect interest in the subject matter of this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.

View full text