3.9 Article

How does adding and removing liquid from socket bladders affect residual-limb fluid volume?

Journal

Publisher

JOURNAL REHAB RES & DEV
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2012.06.0121

Keywords

accommodation; amputation; bioimpedance; fluid insert; interface pressure; prosthesis; prosthetic socket; residual limb; transtibial; volume

Categories

Funding

  1. Orthotic and Prosthetic Education and Research Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health (American Rehabilitation and Recovery Act) [R01HD60585]
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD060585] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adding and removing liquid from socket bladders is a means for people with limb loss to accommodate residual-limb volume change. We fit 19 people with transtibial amputation using their regular prosthetic socket with fluid bladders on the inside socket surface to undergo cycles of bladder liquid addition and removal. In each cycle, subjects sat, stood, and walked for 90 s with bladder liquid added, and then sat, stood, and walked for 90 s again with the bladder liquid removed. The amount of bladder liquid added was increased in each cycle. We used bioimpedance analysis to measure residual-limb fluid volume. Results showed that the preferred bladder liquid volume was 16.8 +/- 8.4 mL (mean +/- standard deviation), corresponding with 1.7% +/- 0.8% of the average socket volume between the bioimpedance voltage-sensing electrodes. Residual-limb fluid volume driven out of the residual limb when bladder liquid was added was typically not recovered upon subsequent bladder liquid removal. Of the 19 subjects, 15 experienced a gradual residual-limb fluid volume loss over the test session. Care should be taken when implementing adjustable socket technologies in people with limb loss. Reducing socket volume may accentuate residual-limb fluid volume loss.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available