经股骨假体窝设计:文献综述

IF 0.4 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics Pub Date : 2021-11-16 DOI:10.1097/JPO.0000000000000395
M. Brodie, Laura Murray, Anthony McGarry
{"title":"经股骨假体窝设计:文献综述","authors":"M. Brodie, Laura Murray, Anthony McGarry","doi":"10.1097/JPO.0000000000000395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction The prosthetic socket is the interface that connects the human body to the artificial limb and allows transmission of body weight and forces during gait. The review purpose is to assess the quality of scientific evidence and compare this for a variety of available transfemoral socket designs. Comparisons will be made of socket biomechanics, metabolic efficiency and comfort, and the advantages/disadvantages associated with each design. Methods Socket designs included were quadrilateral (quad), ischial containment (IC), Marlo Anatomical Socket, subischial, high-fidelity (HiFi), and the Socket-less Socket. A literature review was conducted in five online databases: Compendex, Embase, PubMed, ProQuest Materials Science, and ProQuest Biological Science, using Boolean search terms and truncation of relevant keywords. Included articles were published between 1989 and 2018. A predetermined methodological criterion was used in conjunction with a modified version of the Oxford Levels of Evidence to assess and grade the quality of selected articles. Results Thirteen clinical studies were included in this review. Based on the chosen search strategy and quality criterion, this review found a limited, low-quality evidence base for all included socket designs. All articles, except one, compared the various socket designs (quad, quad and MAS, MAS, subischial, and HiFi) against an IC socket as this was deemed the “standard of care” design. Conclusions Although IC attained the highest volume of evidence, this socket design was not proven to be superior. The variety of biomechanical features pertaining to each socket design provides several advantages/disadvantages. Recommendations are made for future research. Clinical Relevance Findings from this literature review promote knowledge and understanding of transfemoral socket design by highlighting the underlying theory, strengths, and weaknesses of each design acknowledged to facilitate improved evidence-based practice.","PeriodicalId":53702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics","volume":"34 1","pages":"e73 - e92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transfemoral Prosthetic Socket Designs: A Review of the Literature\",\"authors\":\"M. Brodie, Laura Murray, Anthony McGarry\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JPO.0000000000000395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Introduction The prosthetic socket is the interface that connects the human body to the artificial limb and allows transmission of body weight and forces during gait. The review purpose is to assess the quality of scientific evidence and compare this for a variety of available transfemoral socket designs. Comparisons will be made of socket biomechanics, metabolic efficiency and comfort, and the advantages/disadvantages associated with each design. Methods Socket designs included were quadrilateral (quad), ischial containment (IC), Marlo Anatomical Socket, subischial, high-fidelity (HiFi), and the Socket-less Socket. A literature review was conducted in five online databases: Compendex, Embase, PubMed, ProQuest Materials Science, and ProQuest Biological Science, using Boolean search terms and truncation of relevant keywords. Included articles were published between 1989 and 2018. A predetermined methodological criterion was used in conjunction with a modified version of the Oxford Levels of Evidence to assess and grade the quality of selected articles. Results Thirteen clinical studies were included in this review. Based on the chosen search strategy and quality criterion, this review found a limited, low-quality evidence base for all included socket designs. All articles, except one, compared the various socket designs (quad, quad and MAS, MAS, subischial, and HiFi) against an IC socket as this was deemed the “standard of care” design. Conclusions Although IC attained the highest volume of evidence, this socket design was not proven to be superior. The variety of biomechanical features pertaining to each socket design provides several advantages/disadvantages. Recommendations are made for future research. Clinical Relevance Findings from this literature review promote knowledge and understanding of transfemoral socket design by highlighting the underlying theory, strengths, and weaknesses of each design acknowledged to facilitate improved evidence-based practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"e73 - e92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000395\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要简介假肢插座是连接人体和假肢的接口,可以在步态中传递体重和力量。审查的目的是评估科学证据的质量,并将其与各种可用的经股窝设计进行比较。将对承窝生物力学、代谢效率和舒适度以及与每种设计相关的优点/缺点进行比较。方法插座设计包括四边形(quad)、坐骨包封(IC)、Marlo解剖插座、基底下、高保真度(HiFi)和无插座插座。在五个在线数据库中进行了文献综述:Compendex、Embase、PubMed、ProQuest Materials Science和ProQuest Biological Science,使用布尔搜索术语并截断相关关键词。收录的文章发表于1989年至2018年间。预先确定的方法标准与牛津证据水平的修订版结合使用,以评估和评分所选文章的质量。结果13项临床研究纳入本综述。基于所选择的搜索策略和质量标准,本综述为所有包含的插座设计找到了有限的、低质量的证据基础。除一篇外,所有文章都将各种插座设计(quad、quad和MAS、MAS、subischail和HiFi)与IC插座进行了比较,因为这被认为是“护理标准”设计。结论尽管IC获得了最高的证据,但这种插座设计并没有被证明是优越的。与每个插座设计相关的各种生物力学特征提供了几个优点/缺点。对未来的研究提出了建议。这篇文献综述的临床相关性研究结果通过强调每种设计的基本理论、优点和缺点来促进对经股窝设计的了解和理解,以促进循证实践的改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Transfemoral Prosthetic Socket Designs: A Review of the Literature
ABSTRACT Introduction The prosthetic socket is the interface that connects the human body to the artificial limb and allows transmission of body weight and forces during gait. The review purpose is to assess the quality of scientific evidence and compare this for a variety of available transfemoral socket designs. Comparisons will be made of socket biomechanics, metabolic efficiency and comfort, and the advantages/disadvantages associated with each design. Methods Socket designs included were quadrilateral (quad), ischial containment (IC), Marlo Anatomical Socket, subischial, high-fidelity (HiFi), and the Socket-less Socket. A literature review was conducted in five online databases: Compendex, Embase, PubMed, ProQuest Materials Science, and ProQuest Biological Science, using Boolean search terms and truncation of relevant keywords. Included articles were published between 1989 and 2018. A predetermined methodological criterion was used in conjunction with a modified version of the Oxford Levels of Evidence to assess and grade the quality of selected articles. Results Thirteen clinical studies were included in this review. Based on the chosen search strategy and quality criterion, this review found a limited, low-quality evidence base for all included socket designs. All articles, except one, compared the various socket designs (quad, quad and MAS, MAS, subischial, and HiFi) against an IC socket as this was deemed the “standard of care” design. Conclusions Although IC attained the highest volume of evidence, this socket design was not proven to be superior. The variety of biomechanical features pertaining to each socket design provides several advantages/disadvantages. Recommendations are made for future research. Clinical Relevance Findings from this literature review promote knowledge and understanding of transfemoral socket design by highlighting the underlying theory, strengths, and weaknesses of each design acknowledged to facilitate improved evidence-based practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: Published quarterly by the AAOP, JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics provides information on new devices, fitting and fabrication techniques, and patient management experiences. The focus is on prosthetics and orthotics, with timely reports from related fields such as orthopaedic research, occupational therapy, physical therapy, orthopaedic surgery, amputation surgery, physical medicine, biomedical engineering, psychology, ethics, and gait analysis. Each issue contains research-based articles reviewed and approved by a highly qualified editorial board and an Academy self-study quiz offering two PCE''s.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Physical Therapy and Orthosis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Medial Knee Osteoarthritis Blood Pressure Regulation in Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation: Effects of Wearing a Prosthesis Motion Analysis of a Frontal Plane Adaptable Prosthetic Foot Immediate Effect of Soft Lumbosacral Orthosis on Trunk Stability and Upper-Limb Functionality in Children with Cerebral Palsy Importance of Health Policy and Systems Research for Strengthening Rehabilitation in Health Systems: A Call to Action to Accelerate Progress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1