Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40521094›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025

Objective measurement methods for the evaluation of socket comfort in patients with transfemoral amputation: a systematic review.

Lisa Marie Tiesler, Melanie Edel, Fangxing Wang, Philipp Pieroh, Welf-Guntram Drossel, Alina Carabello, Daniel Zipplies, Christoph-Eckhard Heyde, Stefan Schleifenbaum

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lisa Marie Tiesler *ZESBO - Center for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Melanie Edel *ZESBO - Center for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Fangxing WangZESBO - Center for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Philipp PierohDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Welf-Guntram DrosselFraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU, Chemnitz, Germany.
Alina CarabelloFraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU, Chemnitz, Germany.
Daniel ZippliesProfessorship Applied Thermodynamics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany.
Christoph-Eckhard HeydeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Stefan SchleifenbaumZESBO - Center for Research on Musculoskeletal Systems, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Achieving optimal fitting for the socket-limb interface in transfemoral amputees remains a significant challenge. This iterative fitting process largely relies on subjective feedback regarding the patient's comfort and the expertise of the prosthetist. Consequently, this review aims to explore methods for identifying issues at the socket-limb interface through both objective and subjective measurement approaches. Methods: All articles available in MEDLINE and Web of Science up to May 2024 were screened and evaluated, with the authors conducting a quality assessment. Results: The socket design was the most frequently studied factor influencing the socket-limb interface (11/25), with investigations addressing challenges such as volume fluctuations (5/25), pressure and shear forces (4/25), femur pistoning (3/25), perspiration and ventilation (2/25), and prosthesis alignment (1/25). Objective measurement methods included gait analysis (6/25), mobility tests (7/25), radiological techniques (8/25), pressure sensors (5/25), and thermal sensors/imaging (2/25), as well as optical and metabolic assessments (3/25). Several studies (17/25) combined objective analyses with subjective questionnaires, such as the Socket Comfort Score (SCS) and Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), to evaluate comfort, satisfaction, and prosthetic preferences across varying socket designs. Individualized questionnaires addressing socket design preferences were also employed. Furthermore, a final clustered analysis was conducted to allow comparisons of approaches and tools used for examining similar issues. Despite methodological advancements, a lack of standardization in measurement approaches was evident. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review highlight significant gaps in current methods for evaluating the socket-limb interface in transfemoral amputees. While both subjective questionnaires, such as the SCS and PEQ, and objective tools, including pressure sensors and motion analyses, offer valuable insights, neither approach alone is sufficient to comprehensively assess prosthetic fit and comfort. Methodological inconsistencies and the absence of standardized protocols further impede advancements in this field. This review underscores the need for a validated and standardized measurement method that combines subjective and objective approaches to enhance evaluation accuracy. Addressing these challenges will enable the development of reliable tools for assessing socket-limb interface quality, especially prosthetic fit and comfort, and drive progress in improving prosthetic functionality and patient outcomes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023405042, identifier, CRD42023405042.

Indexed as

amputationcomfortinterfacemeasurementprosthesisresidual limbsockettransfemoral

Identifiers

PMID40521094
PMCPMC12163241

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.