http://poi.sagepub.com/Prosthetics and Orthotics International

http://poi.sagepub.com/content/34/2/146The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.3109/03093641003645528

2010 34: 146Prosthet Orthot IntGlenn K. Klute, Brian C. Glaister and Jocelyn S. Berge

Prosthetic Liners for Lower Limb Amputees: A Review of the Literature  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics

can be found at:Prosthetics and Orthotics InternationalAdditional services and information for    

  http://poi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://poi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jun 1, 2010Version of Record >>

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prosthetic liners for lower limb amputees: A reviewof the literature

GLENN K. KLUTE1,2,3, BRIAN C. GLAISTER1,2, & JOCELYN S. BERGE1

1Department of Veterans Affairs, RR&D Center of Excellence, Seattle, WA, and Departments of2Mechanical and 3Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

AbstractProsthetic liners exist to improve amputee safety and comfort by adding a cushioning layer betweenthe residual limb and the prosthetic socket. Many choices in liner technology are available, andclinicians often rely on personal intuition and experience to choose which liners are appropriate forwhich patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the literature to find what scientific evidenceexists to inform prescription practices. ‘Prosthetic liner’ was used as a search term in the Web ofScience and PubMed research databases. Fourteen scientific articles met the eligibility criteria and arediscussed in this review. The results of this review suggest that there is little scientific evidence toinform prosthetic liner prescription practices. Liner material properties have been well-studied, but theirinfluence on in vivo performance is not well understood. Understanding liner effect on function wouldbe an area of great usefulness.

Keywords: Prosthetics, prosthetic interface mechanics, testing of prosthetic components, prostheticdesign, prosthetic liners, lower limb prosthesis, lower limb amputee

Introduction

Protecting residual limb soft tissues for lower limb amputees is a difficult challenge. Unlike

the plantar tissues of the intact foot, residual limb soft tissues are not accustomed to bearing

loads.1 Consequently, loads imparted on the residual limb by the prosthetic socket can

frequently cause ulceration and other skin conditions.1–3 This is problematic as treatment

can often require the temporary disuse of a prosthesis which greatly impedes an amputee’s

ability to perform activities of daily living.

To help cushion the transfer of loads between the prosthetic socket and the residual limb,

soft prosthetic liners have been developed.4–7 Liners also provide additional functionality by

contributing to the suspension of the prosthesis. Historically, liners were made from open

and closed cell foams formed around the residual limb.8,9 Foam liners are still used in

practice, but modern liners are typically made from silicone or other elastomers and are

rolled onto the residual limb. These roll on liners are believed to offer better suspension,

durability and cushioning than foam.7,10–13

Correspondence: Dr Glenn Klute, Department of Veterans Affairs, RR&D Center of Excellence, 1660 S Columbian Way MS151,

Seattle, WA 98108 USA. E-mail: gklute@u.washington.edu

Prosthetics and Orthotics InternationalJune 2010; 34(2): 146–153

ISSN 0309-3646 print/ISSN 1746-1553 online � 2010 ISPO

DOI: 10.3109/03093641003645528

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Many liners exist on the market, but clinical prescription practices are still primarily

informed by experience. That is, a clinician will choose a particular liner for a specific patient

based on intuition, product literature, colleague recommendations, and/or prior experience.

If the liner appears to be successful with that patient, the clinician will then often prescribe

that liner to other similar patients. However, there is a growing desire in the prosthetics field

to include scientific evidence when making prescription decisions. The purpose of this paper

was to review the scientific evidence that exists regarding prosthetic liners to assist with

prescription practices and to identify potential areas of future research.

Methods

‘Prosthetic liner’ was entered in as a search term into the Web of Science and PubMed

databases searching for articles written in English. Fifteen articles were found from the

search to be related to lower limb amputees, and thirteen additional articles were found in

the citations of the articles from the search results. Upon inspection, fourteen articles were

found to present experimental evidence (as opposed to clinical observation or opinion) and

are reviewed in detail in this report.

Mechanical testing of prosthetic liners

Mechanical properties: Scientific literature

The main purpose of prosthetic liners is to cushion the transfer of loads from the prosthetic

socket to the residual limb. Naturally, cushioning performance depends on the mechanical

properties of the liner materials. Consequently, a large portion of prosthetic liner research

has focused on liner mechanical properties.

To understand how vacuum forming affects the mechanical properties of Pelite, a closed-

cell foam used as a prosthetic liner, Sanders and Daly9 tested material samples under

compression and shear loading for both unformed and vacuum-formed conditions. The

study found that vacuum-forming weakens the cell structure of the foam, particularly on the

surfaces. The authors suggested that by controlling the amount of cell degradation at

different areas of the liner, the mechanical properties of the foam could be controlled to

provide unique performance to individual patients.

To understand how mechanical properties differed between liners, Sanders and others8

investigated the compressive stiffness and coefficient of friction for eight types of liner

materials commonly used at the time of the study. Spenco, Poron, silicone, soft Pelite,

medium Pelite, firm Plastazote, regular Plastazote and Nickelplast were used in the study.

Based on load-displacement data from the compressive stiffness tests, Spenco, Poron, and

silicone were recommended for situations where it is desirable for the liner to maintain

thickness and volume since these materials had the least non-recovered strain. Soft Pelite,

medium Pelite, regular Plastazote, and firm Plastazote all had the highest non-recoverable

strains, but they stiffened with increasing displacements similar to biological tissues

suggesting that these materials may be advantageous in cases when matching liner

properties to those of biological tissues is important. Nickelplast behaved linearly but had a

very high stiffness suggesting that it would not give much of a cushioning effect to the

residual limb. Materials with smooth surfaces or coverings, such as Spenco or Poron, had

the lowest coefficients of friction which could be problematic in maintaining suspension.

To investigate the mechanical properties of liners under cyclic compressive loading, cyclic

shear abrasive loading, and frictional loading, Emrich and Slater5 performed a study with

Prosthetic liner review 147

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bock-Lite, Pedilin, silicone and polyurethane. Bock-Lite and silicone had the greatest cycles

to failure under compressive loading while the Pedilin and polyurethane samples lasted

orders of magnitude less. While the investigators were unable to test silicone and

polyurethane under abrasive loading due to tearing of the samples, the Bock-Lite was

shown to survive 15 times as many cycles as the Pedilin under shear abrasion.

Polyurethane and silicone had the highest coefficients of friction while Pedilin and Bock-

Lite had coefficients that were much lower.

To investigate the compressive behavior of several liner materials under geometric

constraints and different loading rates, Covey and others14 performed a study using two

silicone liners (ICEROSS and Alps Easy Liner), a urethane liner, and a thermoplastic

elastomer liner. The authors believed that urethane was the optimal liner material since it

was found to be the stiffest of the four yet provide the best impact protection and the lowest

residual displacement. This suggests it will transfer loads without a time lag yet protect from

impact and not compress from loading. However, it should be noted that the manufacturer of

the urethane samples (TEC Systems) provided funding for the study.

To further understand the mechanical behavior of liners, Sanders and others15 tested

15 commercially-available liners under compression, friction, tension, and shear. The

liners included samples made of silicone elastomer, silicone gel, and urethane. Silicone

gels, which bleed fluid upon compression, were the softest during the compression tests

and were most similar to biological tissues suggesting that they would be most

appropriate for cushioning bony prominences. Silicone elastomers, which are highly

cross-linked, were the stiffest in compression suggesting that these would be

advantageous for residual limbs with excessive soft tissue since the liners would not

add any more deformation on top of the tissue. The urethane sample had a similar

compressive stiffness to some of the silicone elastomer samples. None of the samples

had coefficients of friction low enough to induce slipping in a clinical setting. Urethane had

the highest coefficient of friction suggesting that it would adhere well to weak skin sites

and protect them from breakdown. Shear stiffness trends were similar to the compressive

tests suggesting that silicone elastomers and urethanes would be most appropriate for

residual limbs with excessive residual limb soft tissues to prevent the limb from sliding into

the socket, while silicone gels would be appropriate for limbs with bony prominences to

provide some cushioning effect. The silicone gels and urethane were soft in tension as

were three of the silicone elastomer samples though most of the elastomers had higher

tensile stiffness. This suggests that the elastomers with higher tensile stiffnesses would

provide better suspension.

Mechanical properties: Discussion

Prosthetic liner material properties have been well studied under a number of loading

conditions (e.g., tension, compression, shear and friction) and many prescription sugges-

tions have been made based on the experimental data. For example, Sanders and others15

suggested that stiff liners would be best for patients with excessive soft tissue while soft

liners would be best for cushioning bony prominences. However, the leap from the benchtop

data to patient performance has yet to be made. Testing the hypotheses suggested from

the benchtop tests in controlled experiments with human subjects could make a tremendous

effect on the field in terms of providing clinical guidelines for liner prescription.

Specifically, the following hypotheses should be tested: (1) soft liners provide better

cushioning than stiff liners, (2) stiff liners provide a faster response to movement, (3) silicone

gels provide superior cushioning over bony prominances, (4) silicone elastomers and

148 G. K. Klute et al.

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

urethanes provide superior soft tissue stabilization, (5) urethanes provide superior weak

skin site breakdown protection, and (6) silicone elastomers provide better suspension.

In addition to human subjects testing, a few opportunities for new research remain in

the area of benchtop testing of prosthetic liners. For instance, the vibration transmissibility

properties of prosthetic liners have yet to be investigated. Intact individuals attenuate

shock loads at heel strike through a combination of soft tissue compression and joint

movement,16 but lower limb amputees must also rely on prosthetic components includ-

ing liners to attenuate shock loads. Understanding how prosthetic liners transmit

transient loads could lead to better prescription practices and the development of new

technologies.

Lastly, the material properties of prosthetic liners are likely to be affected by use and wear.

It would be useful to understand how the properties degrade with use as old, worn liners

may be more apt to contribute to discomfort or soft tissue injury. This information could lead

to new liner technologies as well as prescription guidelines for replacing old liners.

Heat and moisture transfer properties

Heat and moisture transfer: Scientific literature

While much attention has been paid to mechanical properties of liners, heat and moisture

transfer properties have also received attention. Excessive heat and moisture retention

within the socket are common complaints of lower limb amputees.17–21 Research has

shown that the prosthetic socket/liner interface acts as a heat capacitor and retains elevated

residual limb temperatures even after activity is ceased.22 Combined with the pooling of

perspiration against the skin, the environment between the liner and skin is perfect for

forming a host of residual limb skin problems including contact dermatitis, hyperhydrosis,

and bacterial infections.3,23,24 As such, researchers have investigated the heat and moisture

transfer properties of prosthetic liners.

To understand how prosthetic sockets and liners may influence the retention of

perspiration, Hachisuka and others25 investigated the moisture permeability properties of

liner and socket materials. The study included a silicone liner, an ICEROSS liner, Degaplast

plastic, Pelite, and a sample of poplar from a wooden socket. The poplar sample was about

four times as permeable as everything else, and the liners and Degaplast samples were

more than 80 times less permeable than tests without a sample suggesting that liner

materials are highly impermeable to moisture transfer.

To understand how liner and socket materials may influence residual limb skin

temperatures, Klute and others26 investigated the thermal conductivity of prosthetic socket

and liner materials. Twenty-three liners were tested as were samples of carbon fiber

laminate and thermoplastic socket materials. Across the board, thermal conductivity

coefficients were small ranging from 0.085–0.266 W/m-K for liners and 0.148–0.0150 W/m-

K for socket materials. This suggests that liners and sockets are highly resistive to heat

conduction and could be a major contributor to elevated skin temperatures.

Heat and moisture transfer: Discussion

There exists a tremendous opportunity to make a positive improvement of amputee comfort

by moving heat and sweat away from the surface of the residual limb. This could be

achieved via pumps or other mechanical means, but augmentations to liner designs could

possibly be successful as well. Future research should focus on improving heat transfer

Prosthetic liner review 149

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

coefficients in liners as well as finding a way to remove perspiration while also maintaining

suspension.

Human subjects’ experiments

Human subjects’ experiments: Scientific literature

In addition to material properties, researchers have investigated the performance of liners

with human subjects. To investigate the effect of liner materials on interface pressures,

Sonck and others27 measured pressures at four sites on the sockets of 26 amputees under

three liner conditions: (1) no liner, (2) a soft insert called Kem-Blo, and (3) a silicone liner.

The results of the study showed reduced pressures at all the socket sites with the silicone

liner compared to the other conditions suggesting that silicone has an ability to distribute

pressure evenly to the residual limb.

Lee and others28 investigated residual limb pain threshold and tolerance using an indenter

device lined with Pelite liner material and polypropylene socket material. At all locations on

the residual limb, subjects could withstand greater force with Pelite than with polypropylene

suggesting that Pelite distributes load over a greater area of soft tissue. Additionally, the

study found that thin, stiff layers of tissue tolerated pain better than thick, soft layers of

tissue.

Human subjects’ experiments: Discussion

Given the important role that liners play in amputee comfort, it is surprising that only two

studies were found in the literature investigating liner performance in human subjects.

Nonetheless, these studies provide valuable information in that they show that liners

distribute pressures over the residual limb which is their intended purpose. The study by Lee

and others28 also found that pain tolerance varies according to soft tissue type. This

information suggests that liners that have different geometries or material properties in

different areas could perhaps provide additional functionality. Additionally, several future

human subjects’ experiments have already been suggested in the review of the material

properties literature.

Outcomes research

Outcomes research: The scientific literature

In addition to controlled trials with human subjects, many investigators have performed

outcomes research related to prosthetic liners. The measurement and reporting of

outcomes can help in understanding the mobility, function, and quality of life of lower limb

amputees. Importantly, the results from outcome studies can be used in a number of

different ways that benefit lower limb amputees. Identifying problems experienced by lower

limb amputees is one application that can aid in specifying areas of patient care that need

improvement.17,19 Describing prescription practice is another valuable application that can

assist in creating or evaluating clinical guidelines.29,30 They can also assist in quantifying

factors associated with costs related to rehabilitation or prosthesis fabrication.31–33

In order to gather clinical opinion about the ICEROSS liner, McCurdie and others34 sent

surveys to 72 physicians and prosthetists experienced in prescribing the system. The

respondents felt that the ICEROSS neither provided advantages or disadvantages to

150 G. K. Klute et al.

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

patients with long residual limbs, conical residual limbs, peripheral vascular disease,

residual limb pain, poor alignment stability, or poor cosmesis. Additionally, the system would

be neither advantageous nor disadvantageous for elderly or traumatic patients. Further-

more, the respondents felt the ICEROSS would be advantageous to patients with sensitive

skin or skin grafts, those prone to pistoning, and those unable to use a cuff suspension.

Lastly, the respondents were divided on some subjects with some respondents advocating

the use of the ICEROSS for patients with skin breakdown, neuropathies, sensitive skin,

residual limb volume instability, and bony prominences while other respondents

discouraged the use of the ICEROSS for the same patients. The study results further

highlighted the diversity of clinical opinions and the need for scientific evidence to inform

prescription practices.

To perform a qualitative comparison between silicone and Pelite liners, Boonstra and

others35 used a survey instrument with transtibial amputees wearing both systems.

Unfortunately, only eight subjects were included in the study, and a definitive preference for

one liner over the other was not demonstrated. Some subjects preferred the silicone liner

because it distributed pressure differently and had a closer connection between the liner and

the socket. Others rejected the silicone liner for the same reasons.

To understand outcomes differences between mineral oil gel liners with locking pin

suspensions and Pelite liners and neoprene suspension sleeves, Coleman and others36

performed a randomized crossover trial with 13 lower limb amputee subjects. The study

found that 77% of the subjects preferred the Pelite system, took 83% more steps, and wore

the system 6 h per day longer than the gel liner. Subjects however, when interviewed,

expressed advantages and disadvantages of both systems and both systems performed

similarly in terms of pain and comfort.

To investigate the relationship between hand function and residual limb skin problems,

Baars and others37 performed a chart review with 60 amputees using silicone liners. The

study found that 70% of subjects with impaired hand function suffered residual limb skin

problems compared to 32% of patients with normal hand function suggesting that hand

function should be considered when making a decision to prescribe silicone liners.

Lastly, to determine what evidence exists to support the prescription practices of silicone

liners for transtibial amputees, Baars and Geertzen38 performed a review of the literature.

The study concluded that little evidence existed to support the prescription of silicone liners,

but that the conclusion was more a reflection of the quality of research that existed not the

liners themselves. The authors recommended future work to include definitive clinical

metrics and homogeneous subject groups.

Outcomes research: Discussion

Prosthetic liner outcomes research represents another opportunity to positively impact

amputee care because, as Baars and Geertzen38 noted, few studies have used objective

clinical measures or homogenous patient groups which makes drawing conclusions

difficult. However, with that said, the existing literature helps identify future areas of

research.

McCurdie and others34 highlighted the problems that arise when prosthetic components

are prescribed based on clinician experience and intuition; as the clinician group surveyed

was divided as to if the ICEROSS system is useful for patients with skin breakdown,

neuropathies, sensitive skin, residual limb volume instability, or bony prominances.

Targeted outcomes research with those patient groups could greatly aid prescription

practices.

Prosthetic liner review 151

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cost is becoming increasingly more important in prescription decisions as well. New

technologies come on to the market constantly promising improved function but usually at a

higher cost. Coleman and others36 performed the only study to report costs in their

comparison of Alpha liners ($945 reimbursement rate) and Pelite liners ($280). Patients

overwhelmingly preferred the Pelite and took 82% more steps with that system. More cost/

benefit studies could help clinicians prescribe devices that provide maximum function for

minimum cost which could result in a potentially large savings for the healthcare system.

Conclusion

The results of this paper suggest that there is little scientific evidence to inform the

prescription practices of prosthetic liners. Research has shown that liners can help distribute

loading and reduce pain, but research discerning differences between liners to aid with

clinical choices is lacking. While the material properties of prosthetic liners have been well-

studied, how those properties affect function in vivo is not well understood. Additionally, new

technology is constantly being introduced that promises improved function but often at a

higher cost. Research focused at quantifying a cost:benefit ratio could be a great aid for

prescription practices aimed at cost savings. Plenty of opportunities remain to make

research impacts regarding prosthetic liners.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Department of Veterans Affairs Grant A4843C and by U.S.

Department of Education Grant entitled ‘‘Advancing Orthotics & Prosthetic Care through

Research Standards of Practice and Outreach’’ (H235J060001) CFDA# 84.235J to the

American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are

responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

References

1. Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, Chardon JP. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-

extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86(4):659–663.

2. Levy SW. Skin problems of the leg amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int 1980;4(1):37–44.

3. Meulenbelt HE, Geertzen JH, Dijkstra PU, Jonkman MF. Skin problems in lower limb amputees: An overview by

case reports. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2007;21(2):147–155.

4. Hatfield AG, Morrison JD. Polyurethane gel liner usage in the Oxford Prosthetic Service. Prosthet Orthot Int

2001;25(1):41–46.

5. Emrich R, Slater K. Comparative analysis of below-knee prosthetic socket liner materials. J Med Eng Technol

1998;22(2):94–98.

6. Grevsten S. Ideas on the suspension of the below-knee prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 1978;2(1):3–7.

7. Kristinsson O. The ICEROSS concept: A discussion of a philosophy. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993;17(1):49–55.

8. Sanders JE, Greve JM, Mitchell SB, Zachariah SG. Material properties of commonly-used interface materials

and their static coefficients of friction with skin and socks. J Rehabil Res Dev 1998;35(2):161–176.

9. Sanders JE, Daly CH, Cummings WR, Reed RD, Marks RJ. A measurement device to assist amputee

prosthetic fitting. J Clin Eng 1994;19(1):63–71.

10. Dietzen CJ, Harshberger J, Pidikiti RD. Suction sock suspension for above knee prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot

1991;3(2):90–93.

11. Haberman LJ, Bedotto RA, Colodney EJ. Silicone-only suspension (SOS) for the above-knee amputee.

J Prosthet Orthot 1992;4(2):76–85.

12. Madigan RR, Fillauer KD. 3-S Prosthesis – a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop 1991;11(1):112–117.

152 G. K. Klute et al.

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

13. Fillauer CE, Pritham CH, Fillauer KD. Evolution and development of the Silicone Suction Socket (3s) for below-

knee prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot 1989;1(2):92–103.

14. Covey SJ, Muonio J, Street GM. Flow constraint and loading rate effects on prosthetic liner material and human

tissue mechanical response. J Prosthet Orthot 2000;12(1):15–41.

15. Sanders JE, Nicholson BS, Zachariah SG, Cassisi DV, Karchin A, Fergason JR. Testing of elastomeric liners

used in limb prosthetics: Classification of 15 products by mechanical performance. J Rehabil Res Dev

2004;41(2):175–186.

16. Whittle MW. Generation and attenuation of transient impulsive forces beneath the foot: A review. Gait Posture

1999;10(3):264–275.

17. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ, Burgess AR. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among

persons with trauma-related amputations: A long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;

80(8):563–571.

18. Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, Ajax MJ, Boone DA, Larsen JA, et al. Issues of importance reported by

persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev 1999;36(3):155–163.

19. Hagberg K, Branemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: A survey of quality of life,

prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25(3):186–194.

20. Hachisuka K, Dozono K, Ogata H, Ohmine S, Shitama H, Shinkoda K. Total surface bearing below-knee

prosthesis: Advantages, disadvantages, and clinical implications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(7):783–

789.

21. Hachisuka K, Nakamura T, Ohmine S, Shitama H, Shinkoda K. Hygiene problems of residual limb and silicone

liners in transtibial amputees wearing the total surface bearing socket. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82(9):

1286–1290.

22. Huff EA, Ledoux WR, Berge JS, Klute GK. Measuring residual limb skin temperatures at the skin-prosthesis

interface. J Prosthet Orthot 2008;20(4):170–173.

23. Levy SW. Amputees: Skin problems and prostheses. Cutis 1995;55(5):297–301.

24. Highsmith JT, Highsmith MJ. Common skin pathology in LE prosthesis users. JAAPA 2007;20(11):33–6,47.

25. Hachisuka K, Matsushima Y, Ohmine S, Shitama H, Shinkoda K. Moisture permeability of the total surface

bearing prosthetic socket with a silicone liner: Is it superior to the patella-tendon bearing prosthetic socket?

J Uoeh 2001;23(3):225–232.

26. Klute GK, Rowe GI, Mamishev AV, Ledoux WR. The thermal conductivity of prosthetic sockets and liners.

Prosthet Orthot Int 2007;31(3):292–299.

27. Sonck WA, Cockrell JL, Koepke GH. Effect of liner materials on interface pressures in below-knee prostheses.

Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1970;51(11):666–669.

28. Lee WC, Zhang M, Mak AF. Regional differences in pain threshold and tolerance of the transtibial residual limb:

Including the effects of age and interface material. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86(4):641–649.

29. van der Linde H, Geertzen JH, Hofstad CJ, Van Limbeek J, Postema K. Prosthetic prescription in the

Netherlands: An observational study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003;27(3):170–178.

30. Nakano M, Tokuhiro A, Takechi H. Survey of above knee (A/K) prostheses currently used in the Chugoku-

Shikoku district of Japan. Acta Med Okayama 1997;51(1):45–50.

31. Johannesson A, Larsson GU, Oberg T. From major amputation to prosthetic outcome: A prospective study of

190 patients in a defined population. Prosthet Orthot Int 2004;28(1):9–21.

32. Durance JP, Warren WK, Kerbel DB, Stroud TW. Rehabilitation of below-knee amputees: Factors influencing

outcome and costs in three programmes. Int Disabil Stud 1989;11(3):127–132.

33. Selles RW, Janssens PJ, Jongenengel CD, Bussmann JB. 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;86(1):154–161; quiz 80.

34. McCurdie I, Hanspal R, Nieveen R. ICEROSS – a consensus view: A questionnaire survey of the use of

ICEROSS in the United Kingdom. Prosthet Orthot Int 1997;21(2):124–128.

35. Boonstra AM, van Duin W, Elsma W. Silicone suction socket (3S) versus supracondylar PTB prosthesis with

Pelite liner: Transtibial amputees’ preferences. J Prosthet Orthot 1996;8(3):96–99.

36. Coleman KL, Boone DA, Laing LS, Mathews DE, Smith DG. Quantification of prosthetic outcomes: Elastomeric

gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspension. J

Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(4):591–602.

37. Baars ECT, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB. Skin problems of the stump and hand function in lower limb amputees:

A historic cohort study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2008;32(2):179–185.

38. Baars ECT, Geertzen JHB. Literature review of the possible advantages of silicon liner socket use in trans-tibial

prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005;29(1):27–37.

Prosthetic liner review 153

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 23, 2014poi.sagepub.comDownloaded from