Comparative study between Dermo, Pelite, and Seal-In X5 liners: effect on patient's satisfaction and perceived problems.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effect of satisfaction and perceived problems between Pelite, Dermo with shuttle lock, and Seal-In X5 liners on the transtibial amputees. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of thirty transtibial amputees (17 male, 13 female) volunteered to take part in this research. Two prostheses were fabricated for each participant. Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) was filled in by the participants with the three liners. RESULTS: The statistics highlight that Dermo liner showed significantly higher score (P = 0.05) in walking, walking on uneven surfaces, stairs walking, fitting, donning/doffing, sitting, suspension, and overall satisfaction with Dermo liner compared with Seal-In X5 and Pelite liners. Overall satisfaction was 34% higher with Dermo liner than Seal-In X5 liner and 28% higher than Pelite liner. Participants reported less problems with Dermo liner and significant differences (P < 0.05) were recorded between the three liners in sweating, skin irritation, frustration, and pain compared with Seal-In X5 and Pelite liners. CONCLUSION: Participants experienced high level of satisfaction and practiced fewer problems with Dermo liner. These results showed that there is good indication to believe that Dermo liner might be a good choice for transtibial users and might help the clinicians and prosthetic practitioners in selection criteria of prosthetic liners.

Interface pressure in transtibial socket during ascent and descent on stairs and its effect on patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Transtibial amputees encounter stairs and steps during their daily activities. The excessive pressure between residual limb/socket may reduce the walking capability of transtibial prosthetic users during ascent and descent on stairs. The purposes of the research were to evaluate the interface pressure between Dermo (shuttle lock) and Seal-In X5 (prosthetic valve) interface systems during stair ascent and descent, and to determine their satisfaction effects on users. METHODS: Ten amputees with unilateral transtibial amputation participated in the study. Interface pressure was recorded with F-socket transducer (9811E) during stair ascent and descent at self-selected speed. Each participant filled in a questionnaire about satisfaction and problems encountered with the use of the two interface systems. FINDINGS: The resultant mean peak pressure (kPa) was significantly lower for the Dermo interface system compared to that of the Seal-In X5 interface system at the anterior, posterior and medial regions during stair ascent (63.14 vs. 80.14, 63.14 vs. 90.44, 49.21 vs. 66.04, respectively) and descent (67.11 vs. 80.41, 64.12 vs. 88.24, 47.33 vs. 65.11, respectively). Significant statistical difference existed between the two interface systems in terms of satisfaction and problems encountered (P<0.05). INTERPRETATION: The Dermo interface system caused less pressure within the prosthetic socket compared to the Seal-In X5 interface system during stair negotiation. The qualitative survey also showed that the prosthesis users experienced fewer problems and increased satisfaction with the Dermo interface system.