EVALUATING FEASIBILITY AND DURABILITY OF THE AERO PROSTHETIC LINER IN TRANSTIBIAL PROSTHETIC USERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of prosthetic socket interface material significantly affects user comfort and satisfaction. The Affordable Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Roll-On (AERO) liner was created with the aim of improving functionality and streamlining the wearing process for users. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess user satisfaction, comfort, and durability of the AERO liner and compare it with the common soft Pe-Lite liner. METHODOLOGY: Fourteen individuals with transtibial amputation participated in this three-month randomized crossover trial study. The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), Expanded Socket Comfort Score (ESCS), and liner thickness measurements were used to comprehensively compare the AERO and Pe-Lite liner. FINDINGS: The AERO liner demonstrated notable improvements in prosthetic comfort and functionality over Pe-Lite liner. After three months use, there was a significant reduction in reported frustration with the AERO liner (p=0.023, r=0.604) in the PEQ subscale. Specific aspects, such as walking with the prosthesis (p=0.030, r=0.601) and odor perception (p=0.024, d=0.579), favored the use of the AERO liner. The expanded socket comfort score (ESCS) revealed significant superiority for the AERO liner “at best” (p=0.04) and “on average” (p=0.02) after one and three months, respectively. Liner thickness analysis showed significant reductions at the mid-patellar tendon location for the AERO liner at one (0.57±0.48) and three months (0.90±0.69, p=0.01) and in the posterior region after three months (0.63±0.64, p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the potential advantages of the AERO liner in enhancing comfort and satisfaction. Yet, durability and thinning of the liner when compared to Pe-Lite may be a concern which may eventually affect socket fit. These findings contribute to ongoing efforts to optimize prosthetic interventions and improve the quality of life of individuals with lower limb prosthesis in resource-limited environments. Layman's Abstract Comfort and satisfaction are essential for people using prosthetics. The socket interface material, which encompasses the limb, is crucial for comfort and suspension of the prosthesis on the limb. In resource-limited environments, people mainly use an interface material called Pe-Lite in their prosthetic sockets. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding its comfort and suitability for the residual limb. We aimed to evaluate an alternative material to determine if it was more comfortable and functional than Pe-Lite for these individuals. We invited fourteen people with transtibial amputations to participate in this study. They used a traditional prosthetic design and were provided both Pe-Lite and AERO liners. We asked them about their experiences and measured the various aspects of their treatment. The results were promising. People who used the AERO liner reported much less frustration after three months. They felt an improvement in walking, and they didn't have odor problems expressed when using Pe-Lite. The AERO liner was more comfortable when using the prosthesis. Although the AERO liner compressed more in certain areas compared to the Pe-Lite liner, it remained usable after three months. However, reduce the liner thickness compared to Pe-Lite may be a concern and could affect the socket fit. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/41865/32282 How To Cite: Miyata Y, Sasaki K, Guerra G, Dacharux W, Chaiwan P. Evaluating feasibility and durability of the AERO prosthetic liner in transtibial prosthetic users. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 1, No.5. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i1.41865 Corresponding Author: Kazuhiko Sasaki, Sirindhorn School of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.E-Mail: kazuhiko.sas@mahidol.eduORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1778-6308
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".