Aim: To analyse the two commonly used prosthesis namely the Laminated Exoskeletal Transtibial (TT) Patellar Tendon Bearing socket Prosthesis and the Modular Transtibial Total Surface Bearing Socket (TSBS) Prosthesis for persons with Below Knee amputation in terms of appearance and utility and also to identify the demographics profile in the study group.

Method and Materials:  A cross- sectional questionnaire study was designed for 30 unilateral Transtibial (Below Knee) amputees of which 15 were using Laminated TT Prosthesis and 15 were using Modular TT Prosthesis for more than 1year.The study was conducted between Jan 2016 to Dec 2016. Outcome measure- User satisfaction was analysed using Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire PEQ- appearance and PEQ -utility scales. Statistical analysis used: Paired T test was used to analyse the results and p value found between the two groups for PEQ-appearance and utility using SPSS version 21 computer software.

Results: 93.3 % (14 subjects) using Modular Prosthesis were satisfied with the utility of their prosthesis compared to only 46.6% (7 subjects) in the Laminated Prosthesis group. Paired T test was statistically significant between two prosthesis group (p value <0.05). 86.6% (13 subjects) using Modular Prosthesis were satisfied with the appearance of their prosthesis compared to only 40% (6 subjects)) in the Laminated Prosthesis group which was statistically significant (p value<0.05).

Conclusion: Comparing Modular Transtibial Prosthesis with conventional laminated Transtibial prosthesis, modular prosthesis is by far superior in terms of utility and appearance.

Keywords: Prosthesis, transtibial, amputation, questionnaire, satisfaction.

1. World Health Organization (WHO). World report on disability. Geneva: WHO, 2011.
2. Eide A, Øderud T. Assistive technology in low-income countries. In: Maclachlan M, Swartz L, editors. (eds). Disability & international development: towards inclusive global health. New York: Springer, 2009, pp. 149–160.
3. Bob Giesberts et al. The modular socket system in a rural setting in Indonesia. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018 Jun; 42(3): 336–343.

4. Normann E, Olsson A, Brodtkorb TH. Modular socket system versus traditionally laminated socket: a cost analysis.. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011 Mar;35(1):76-80.
5. Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Aug;79(8):931-8.
6. Unnikrishnan E. P., Rakesh Rollands, Sasi M. Parambil. Epidemiology of major limb amputations: a cross sectional study from a South Indian tertiary care hospital. Int Surg J. 2017 May;4(5):1642-1646
7. Essoh JB, Bamba I, Dje Bi Dje V, Traore A, Lambin Y. Limb amputations in adults in an Ivorian Teaching Hospital. Niger J Ortho & Trauma. 2007;6(2):61-3.
8. Chalya PL, Mabula JB, Dass RM, Ngayomela IH, Chandika AB, Mbelenge N, Gilyoma JM. Major limb amputations: A tertiary hospital experience in northwestern Tanzania. J orthopaedic surgery and research. 2012;7(1):18.
9. Paudel B, Shrestha BK, Banskota AK. Two faces of major lower limb amputations. Kathmandu University Medical J. 2005;3(11):212-6.
10. Kidmas AT, Nwadiaro CH, Igun GO. Lower limb amputation in Jos, Nigeria. East Afr Med J. 2004,81:427-9.
11. Kark L, Simmons A. Patient satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: the role of gait deviation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011;35:225–33.
12. MohdHawari N, Jawaid M, MdTahir P, et al. Case study: survey of patient satisfaction with prosthesis quality and design among below-knee prosthetic leg socket users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2017;10:868–74.
13. Berke GM, Fergason J, Milani JR, et al. Comparison of satisfaction with current prosthetic care in veterans and service members from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts with major traumatic limb loss. J Rehabil Res Dev 2010;47:361–71.
14. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ, et al. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: a long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:563–71.
15. Selles RW, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing functional outcome and cost efficiency of a total surface-bearing socket versus a conventional patellar tendon-bearing socket in transtibial amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005.
16. Safari MR, et al. Systematic review of effects of current transtibial prosthetic socket designs-Part 1: Qualitative outcomes. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015.

Priyadarshini.C.S

Madras Medical College, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai, India

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.