Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/6812
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics-
dc.creatorColeman, KL-
dc.creatorBoone, DA-
dc.creatorLaing, LS-
dc.creatorMathews, DE-
dc.creatorSmith, DG-
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-11T08:26:04Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-11T08:26:04Z-
dc.identifier.issn0748-7711-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/6812-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Rehabilitation Research and Development Serviceen_US
dc.rightsThe article is available at http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/04/41/4/abscoleman.htmlen_US
dc.subjectAlpha® lineren_US
dc.subjectAmbulatory monitoringen_US
dc.subjectElastomericen_US
dc.subjectLower limben_US
dc.subjectOutcome assessmenten_US
dc.subjectPe-Lite lineren_US
dc.subjectProsthesisen_US
dc.subjectQuestionnaireen_US
dc.subjectSocketen_US
dc.subjectTranstibialen_US
dc.titleQuantification of prosthetic outcomes : elastomeric gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspensionen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage591-
dc.identifier.epage602-
dc.identifier.volume41-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dcterms.abstractFor this randomized crossover trial, we compared two common transtibial socket suspension systems: the Alpha® liner with distal locking pin and the Pe-Lite liner with neoprene suspension sleeve. Our original hypotheses asserted that increased ambulatory activity, wear time, comfort, and satisfaction would be found with the elastomeric suspension system. Thirteen subjects completed the study. Following 2.5-month accommodation to each condition, ambulatory activity was recorded (steps/minute for 2 weeks), and subjects completed three questionnaires specific to prosthesis use and pain: the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), a Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) excerpt, and the Socket Comfort Score (SCS). Upon completion, subjects selected their favored system for continued use. Ten subjects preferred the Pe-Lite and three the Alpha®. Subjects spent 82% more time wearing the Pe-Lite and took 83% more steps per day. Ambulatory intensity distribution did not differ between systems. No statistically significant differences were found in questionnaire results. Subject feedback for each system was both positive and negative.-
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of rehabilitation research and development, July/Aug. 2004, v. 41, no. 4, p. 591-602-
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of rehabilitation research and development-
dcterms.issued2004-07-
dc.description.oaVersion of Recorden_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberOA_IR/PIRAen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Coleman_Prosthetic_Elastomeric_Gel.pdf314.53 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

317
Last Week
1
Last month
Citations as of Apr 21, 2024

Downloads

427
Citations as of Apr 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.