Objective To study the design and fabrication of the sub-ischial compression/release stabilized (CRS) transfemoral prosthetic socket based on 3D reconstructed residual limb. Methods The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of a transfemoral amputee's residual limb was used for 3D construction. The base of the socket was constructed by the surface of the 3D geometry of residual limb in SolidWorks, and then the sketching and swept surface function was applied to create the compression and release structure. The CRS socket was analyzed by finite element method. The simulation was then validated experimentally. Results The transfemoral CRS socket was successfully constructed in SolidWorks and assembled with the residual limb for finite element modeling. The simulation results showed the residual limb pressure distribution over the CRS socket compression areas. The maximum residual limb pressure was predicted to be 218.5 kPa by the finite element model, and experimentally measured was 239 kPa. The maximum residual limb pressure was within the pain threshold and pain tolerance range, and the patient was satisfied with the socket. Conclusion This attempt of reconstructing residual limb MRI to design the CRS prosthetic socket provided another way to study the socket behavior in the prosthesis fitting process. The FEM-CAD method can improve the socket design and fitting process with computer simulation to reduce the trial on patients.
MENG Zhao-jian
,
ZHANG Ming
,
LEUNG Kam-lun
. Design of Compression/Release Stabilized Transfemoral Prosthetic Socket Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Based Three-dimensional Reconstruction Model of Residual Limb[J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2019
, 25(10)
: 1197
-1201
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2019.10.015
1 GottschalkF, StillsM. The biomechanics of trans-femoral amputation [J]. Prosthet Orthot Int, 1994, 18(1): 12-17.
2 ChatterjeeS, MajumderS, RoychowdhuryA, et al. Review: problems with use of trans-tibial prosthesis [J]. J Med Imaging Health Inform, 2016, 6: 269-284.
3 FiteK B. Overview of the Components Used in Active and Passive Lower-Limb Prosthetic Devices in Full Stride [M]. Switzerland: Springer, 2017: 55-74.
4 BuckleyJ G, SpenceW D, SolomonidisS E. Energy cost of walking: comparison of “intelligent prosthesis” with conventional mechanism [J]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1997, 78(3): 330-333.
5 SchmalzT, BlumentrittS, JaraschR. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components [J]. Gait Posture, 2002, 16(3): 255-263.
6 VersluysR, BeylP, Van DammeM, et al. Prosthetic feet: state-of-the-art review and the importance of mimicking human ankle-foot biomechanics [J]. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2009, 4 (2): 65-75.
7 NielsenC C. A survey of amputees: functional level and life satisfaction, information needs, and the prosthetist's role [J]. J Prosthet Orthot, 1991, 3(3): 125-129.
8 MeulenbeltH E, GeertzenJ H, JonkmanM F, et al. Skin problems of the stump in lower limb amputees: 1. A clinical study [J]. Acta Derm Venereol, 2011, 91(2): 173-177.
9 DudekN L, MarksM B, MarshallS C, et al. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis [J]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2005, 86(4): 659-663.
10 DudekN L, MarksM B, MarshallS C. Skin problems in an amputee clinic [J]. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2006, 85(5): 424-429.
11 LyonC C, KulkarniJ, ZimersoncE, et al. Skin disorders in amputees [J]. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2000, 42(3): 501-507.
12 PaternòL, IbrahimiM, GruppioniE, et al. Sockets for limb prostheses: a review of existing technologies and open challenges [J]. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2018, 65(9): 1996-2010.
13 KahleJ T, KlenowT D, SampsonW J, et al. The effect of transfemoral interface design on gait speed and risk of falls [J]. Technol Innov, 2016, 18(7): 167-173.
14 AlleyR D, T W 3rdWilliams, AlbuquerqueM J. Prosthetic sockets stabilized by alternating areas of tissue compression and release [J]. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2011, 48(6): 679-696.
15 SchuchC M, PrithamC H. Current transfemoral sockets [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1999(361): 48-54.
16 YeungL, LeungA K L, ZhangM, et al. Effects of long-distance walking on socket-limb interface pressure, tactile sensitivity and subjective perceptions of trans-tibial amputees [J]. Disabil Rehabil, 2013, 35(11): 888-893.
17 LegroM W, ReiberG D, SmithD G, et al. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life [J]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1998, 79(8): 931-938.
18 SafariM R, RoweP, BuisA. Accuracy verification of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology for lower-limb prosthetic research: utilising animal soft tissue specimen and common socket casting materials [J]. Scientific World Journal, 2012: 156186.
19 SengehD M, HerrH. A variable-impedance prosthetic socket for a transtibial amputee designed from magnetic resonance imaging data [J]. J Prosthet Orthot, 2013, 25(11): 129-137.
20 BuisA W, CondonB, BrennanD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging technology in transtibial socket research: a pilot study [J]. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2006, 43(7): 883.
21 DickinsonA S, SteerJ W, WorsleyP R. Finite element analysis of the amputated lower limb: a systematic review and recommendations [J]. Med Eng Phys, 2017, 1(43): 1-8.
22 SinghD, PandeyR. A new proposed method to reverse engineer a residual limb for prosthetic socket-procedure, advantages and challenges [J]. Appl Mech Mater, 2016, 852: 558-563.
23 ColomboG, MorottiR, RizziC. FE analysis of contact between residual limb and socket during simulation of amputee motion [J]. Computer-Aided Design and Application, 2014, 11(4): 381-388.
24 VelezZ J, BustamanteG L, VillarragaO J. Relation between residual limb length and stress distribution over stump for transfemoral amputees [J]. Rev Eia, 2015, 12(23): 107-115.
25 LeeW C, ZhangM, MakA F. Regional differences in pain threshold and tolerance of the transtibial residual limb: including the effects of age and interface material [J]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2005, 86(4): 641-649.
