MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011634696 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v2i2.32941

Mechanical Evaluation of Unity Elevated Vacuum Suspension System

2020· article· en· W3011634696 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hossein Gholizadeh, Edward D. Lemaire, R. Salekrostam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuspension (topology)Materials scienceMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Small residual limb-socket displacement is a good indicator of prosthetic suspensionsystem quality. Active vacuum suspension systems can decrease vertical movement inside the socket,compared to non-active suction systems. This study mechanically evaluated limb-socket displacementwith the Össur Unity active vacuum system. METHOD: Forty-eight conditions were evaluated: four cylindrical and four conical sockets(polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG), thermoset resin (acrylic),Thermolyn soft materials); two Iceross Seal-In V liners (standard, high profile); three vacuumconditions (active vacuum, inactive vacuum, no suction with valve open). An Instron 4428 test machineapplied 0-100N linear ramped tensile loads to each positive mold, with the socket secured in place,while displacement between the mold and socket was recorded. Following the displacement tests, theload before failure (i.e., 10 mm displacement) was measured. RESULTS: Average and standard deviations for movement between the mold and sockets were small.The displacement average for all conditions was 0.30±0.16mm for active vacuum, 0.32±0.16mm forinactive vacuum, and 0.39±0.22mm for no suction. Across all trials, active vacuum systems toleratedsignificantly (p<0.001) more load before failure (812±221N) compared to inactive vacuum (727±213N),and no suction (401±184N). The maximum load before failure (1142±53N) was for the cylindricalpolypropylene socket and high-profile liner. CONCLUSION: The Unity system successfully controlled pistoning inside the socket for regularactivity loads and also controlled the greatest traction loads. While relative movement was smallestfor Unity, all conditions (inactive vacuum, no suction) were viable for loads less than 100N.Furthermore, similar results can be achieved when using different socket fabrication materials. LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT: Prosthetic technology innovation is essential to enhance amputee's quality of life because amputation causes a permanent disability and people with limb loss rely on prostheses for the rest of their lives. The method for attaching a prosthesis to the body is termed prosthetic suspension. Selecting a suitable suspension system is an important step in the prosthetic rehabilitation process. Recently, the Unity elevated vacuum suspension system (https://assets.ossur.com/library/31882/IFU) was developed by Össur. Understanding of how the Unity elevated vacuum system controls limb movement within the socket, with different socket materials, is important to guide prosthetic prescription. Therefore, mechanical testing was conducted to provide quantitative evidence to guide clinical practice. This study showed that the Unity system can hold the residual limb inside the socket successfully even if there is a failure in the vacuum pump. Elevated vacuum made the socket harder to pull off, which is beneficial in cases where the prosthetic foot is snagged during movement. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32941/25960 How to Cite: Gholizadeh H, Lemaire ED, Salekrostam R. Mechanical evaluation of unity elevated vacuum suspension system. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2019;Volume2, Issue2, No.5. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v2i2.32941 *CORRESPONDING AUTHORHossein Gholizadeh,BSc (P&O), MEng.Sc, PhD,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Rehabilitation Research and Development, Ottawa, Canada.Email: gholizadeh87@yahoo.comORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5847-7985

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207