G. Klute, K. J. Bates, J. S. Berge, Wayne Biggs, Charles King
{"title":"亚常压真空修复残肢排汗的处理。","authors":"G. Klute, K. J. Bates, J. S. Berge, Wayne Biggs, Charles King","doi":"10.1682/JRRD.2015.06.0121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the ambulatory person with lower-limb amputation, insufficient management of perspiration can result in inadequate prosthesis adherence, reduced mobility, and discomfort. This study compared a dynamic air exchange (DAE) prosthesis designed to expel accumulated perspiration with a total surface bearing suction socket (Suction) that cannot. Five people with unilateral transtibial amputation participated in a randomized, crossover experiment. All subjects were given a 1 wk acclimation to each study prosthesis while we measured their step activity levels. A rest-walk-rest protocol, including a 30 min treadmill walk at a self-selected speed while wearing thermally insulative garments, was then used to observe residual-limb skin temperatures and perspiration. Afterward, subject opinions about the prostheses were assessed with questionnaires. During the week-long acclimation period, no statistical difference in step activity levels were detected between prostheses (p = 0.22), but this may have been due to self-reported behavioral modifications. During the rest-walk-rest protocol, no differences in skin temperatures were observed (p = 0.37). The DAE prosthesis accumulated 1.09 +/- 0.90 g and expelled 0.67 +/- 0.38 g of perspiration, while the Suction prosthesis accumulated 0.97 +/- 0.75 g. The questionnaire results suggest that participants were receptive to both prostheses. The DAE prosthesis was able to expel more than a third of the total perspiration, suggesting it may enable longer uninterrupted periods of perspiration-inducing activity.","PeriodicalId":50065,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development","volume":"53 6 1","pages":"721-728"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1682/JRRD.2015.06.0121","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure.\",\"authors\":\"G. Klute, K. J. Bates, J. S. Berge, Wayne Biggs, Charles King\",\"doi\":\"10.1682/JRRD.2015.06.0121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For the ambulatory person with lower-limb amputation, insufficient management of perspiration can result in inadequate prosthesis adherence, reduced mobility, and discomfort. This study compared a dynamic air exchange (DAE) prosthesis designed to expel accumulated perspiration with a total surface bearing suction socket (Suction) that cannot. Five people with unilateral transtibial amputation participated in a randomized, crossover experiment. All subjects were given a 1 wk acclimation to each study prosthesis while we measured their step activity levels. A rest-walk-rest protocol, including a 30 min treadmill walk at a self-selected speed while wearing thermally insulative garments, was then used to observe residual-limb skin temperatures and perspiration. Afterward, subject opinions about the prostheses were assessed with questionnaires. During the week-long acclimation period, no statistical difference in step activity levels were detected between prostheses (p = 0.22), but this may have been due to self-reported behavioral modifications. During the rest-walk-rest protocol, no differences in skin temperatures were observed (p = 0.37). The DAE prosthesis accumulated 1.09 +/- 0.90 g and expelled 0.67 +/- 0.38 g of perspiration, while the Suction prosthesis accumulated 0.97 +/- 0.75 g. The questionnaire results suggest that participants were receptive to both prostheses. The DAE prosthesis was able to expel more than a third of the total perspiration, suggesting it may enable longer uninterrupted periods of perspiration-inducing activity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development\",\"volume\":\"53 6 1\",\"pages\":\"721-728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1682/JRRD.2015.06.0121\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2015.06.0121\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2015.06.0121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure.
For the ambulatory person with lower-limb amputation, insufficient management of perspiration can result in inadequate prosthesis adherence, reduced mobility, and discomfort. This study compared a dynamic air exchange (DAE) prosthesis designed to expel accumulated perspiration with a total surface bearing suction socket (Suction) that cannot. Five people with unilateral transtibial amputation participated in a randomized, crossover experiment. All subjects were given a 1 wk acclimation to each study prosthesis while we measured their step activity levels. A rest-walk-rest protocol, including a 30 min treadmill walk at a self-selected speed while wearing thermally insulative garments, was then used to observe residual-limb skin temperatures and perspiration. Afterward, subject opinions about the prostheses were assessed with questionnaires. During the week-long acclimation period, no statistical difference in step activity levels were detected between prostheses (p = 0.22), but this may have been due to self-reported behavioral modifications. During the rest-walk-rest protocol, no differences in skin temperatures were observed (p = 0.37). The DAE prosthesis accumulated 1.09 +/- 0.90 g and expelled 0.67 +/- 0.38 g of perspiration, while the Suction prosthesis accumulated 0.97 +/- 0.75 g. The questionnaire results suggest that participants were receptive to both prostheses. The DAE prosthesis was able to expel more than a third of the total perspiration, suggesting it may enable longer uninterrupted periods of perspiration-inducing activity.