EVALUATING FEASIBILITY AND DURABILITY OF THE AERO PROSTHETIC LINER IN TRANSTIBIAL PROSTHETIC USERS
Issued Date
2023-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
2561987X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85183116890
Journal Title
Canadian Prosthetics and Orthotics Journal
Volume
6
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Canadian Prosthetics and Orthotics Journal Vol.6 No.1 (2023)
Suggested Citation
Miyata Y., Sasaki K., Guerra G., Dacharux W., Chaiwan P. EVALUATING FEASIBILITY AND DURABILITY OF THE AERO PROSTHETIC LINER IN TRANSTIBIAL PROSTHETIC USERS. Canadian Prosthetics and Orthotics Journal Vol.6 No.1 (2023). doi:10.33137/cpoj.v6i1.41865 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/95535
Title
EVALUATING FEASIBILITY AND DURABILITY OF THE AERO PROSTHETIC LINER IN TRANSTIBIAL PROSTHETIC USERS
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of prosthetic socket interface material significantly affects user comfort and satisfaction. The Affordable Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Roll-On (AERO) liner was created with the aim of improving functionality and streamlining the wearing process for users. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess user satisfaction, comfort, and durability of the AERO liner and compare it with the common soft Pe-Lite liner. METHODOLOGY: Fourteen individuals with transtibial amputation participated in this three-month randomized crossover trial study. The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), Expanded Socket Comfort Score (ESCS), and liner thickness measurements were used to comprehensively compare the AERO and Pe-Lite liner. FINDINGS: The AERO liner demonstrated notable improvements in prosthetic comfort and functionality over Pe-Lite liner. After three months use, there was a significant reduction in reported frustration with the AERO liner (p=0.023, r=0.604) in the PEQ subscale. Specific aspects, such as walking with the prosthesis (p=0.030, r=0.601) and odor perception (p=0.024, d=0.579), favored the use of the AERO liner. The expanded socket comfort score (ESCS) revealed significant superiority for the AERO liner “at best” (p=0.04) and “on average” (p=0.02) after one and three months, respectively. Liner thickness analysis showed significant reductions at the mid-patellar tendon location for the AERO liner at one (0.57±0.48) and three months (0.90±0.69, p=0.01) and in the posterior region after three months (0.63±0.64, p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the potential advantages of the AERO liner in enhancing comfort and satisfaction. Yet, durability and thinning of the liner when compared to Pe-Lite may be a concern which may eventually affect socket fit. These findings contribute to ongoing efforts to optimize prosthetic interventions and improve the quality of life of individuals with lower limb prosthesis in resource-limited environments.