RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Comparison between Evidence-Generated Transtibial Sockets and Conventional Computer-Aided Designs, from the Patient’s Perspective
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.09.17.24312762
DO 10.1101/2024.09.17.24312762
A1 Mbithi, Florence
A1 Donovan-Hall, Maggie
A1 Bramley, Jenny
A1 Steer, Joshua
A1 Rossides, Charalambos
A1 Worsley, Peter
A1 Ostler, Chantel
A1 Metcalf, Cheryl
A1 Hannett, Dominic
A1 Ward, Caroline
A1 Kitchen, Jack
A1 Steventon, Sioned
A1 McIntosh, Katy
A1 Guo, Shigong
A1 Harvey, Helen
A1 Slater, David Henderson
A1 Kolli, Vijay
A1 Dickinson, Alex
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/18/2024.09.17.24312762.abstract
AB Objective Personalised prosthetic socket design depends upon skilled prosthetists who aim to balance functional human-prosthesis coupling with safe, comfortable load transmission to skin and soft tissues. This study’s objective was to assess the comfort of sockets generated from past computer aided socket design records.Design A crossover non-inferiority trial with embedded qualitative interview study.Setting Three United Kingdom National Health Service clinics.Participants Seventeen people with nineteen transtibial amputations.Intervention Evidence-Generated sockets and conventional clinician-led computer aided (Control) designsMain Measures Socket Comfort Score and semi-structured interview.Results Evidence-Generated sockets had no statistically-significant difference in comfort compared to clinician-led Control sockets (p=0.38, effect size=0.08), but a lower socket comfort score variability across the group. Analysis of interviews revealed themes around fitting session experiences, similarities and differences between the Evidence-Generated and Control sockets, and residual limb factors impacting perceptions of socket comfort. These provided insights into the participants’ experience of the study and the value of expert prosthetist input in socket design.Conclusions Evidence-Generated sockets demonstrated noninferiority to conventional clinical computer aided design practice in terms of socket comfort. Both quantitative and qualitative results indicated how clinician input remains essential and is valued by prosthesis users. Work is underway to incorporate the evidence-generated sockets into computer aided design software such that they can act as a digital starting point for modification by expert clinicians at fitting, potentially reducing time spent on basic design, enabling prosthetists to focus on more highly-skilled customisation and co-design with their patients.Competing Interest StatementAuthors FM, MDH, CO, CM, SG, HH, VK have no conflict of interest to declare. Authors JS, JB, CR, AD & PW declare employment and/or shareholding in Radii Devices Ltd. Authors DH, CW, JK, SS, KM, DHS declare employment at Opcare Ltd.Clinical TrialNCT06597266Clinical Protocols https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06597266 Funding StatementThis research was funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), grant numbers RF/130 and EF1819\8\24, Innovate UK, grant 10014827, the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), and The Alan Turing Institute, grant EP/N510129/1. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee of University of Southampton (ERGO 76033.A3) and UK national review boards (IRAS 313408 / HRA REC 22/YH/0215) gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the University of Southampton repository, https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D3205.