Compression and tension behavior of the prosthetic foam materials polyurethane, EVA, Pelite™ and a combination of polyurethane and EVA: a preliminary study
-
Siti Nur Nabilah Lutfi
,
Sadeeq Ali
Abstract
Materials with low-strength and low-impedance properties, such as elastomers and polymeric foams are major contributors to prosthetic liner design. Polyethylene-Light (Pelite™) is a foam liner that is the most frequently used in prosthetics but it does not cater to all amputees’ limb and skin conditions. The study aims to investigate the newly modified Foam Liner, a combination of two different types of foams (EVA + PU + EVA) as the newly modified Foam Liner in terms of compressive and tensile properties in comparison to Pelite™, polyurethane (PU) foam, and ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) foam. Universal testing machine (AGS-X, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) has been used to measure the tensile and compressive stress. Pelite™ had the highest compressive stress at 566.63 kPa and tensile stress at 1145 kPa. Foam Liner fell between EVA and Pelite™ with 551.83 kPa at compression and 715.40 kPa at tension. PU foam had the lowest compressive stress at 2.80 kPa and tensile stress at 33.93 kPa. Foam Liner has intermediate compressive elasticity but has high tensile elasticity compared to EVA and Pelite™. Pelite™ remains the highest in compressive and tensile stiffness. Although it is good for amputees with bony prominence, constant pressure might result in skin breakdown or ulcer. Foam Liner would be the best for amputees with soft tissues on the residual limbs to accommodate movement.
Funding source: UM
Award Identifier / Grant number: BK091-2016
Award Identifier / Grant number: MRUN2019-1A
Acknowledgment
Funding from UM Grant BK091-2016 and MRUN 2019-1A is greatly acknowledged.
Research funding: Funding from UM Grant BK091-2016 and MRUN 2019-1A.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors declare no conflict of interests.
References
1. 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;80:563–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200108000-00003.Search in Google Scholar
2. 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;21:147–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2006.01936.x.Search in Google Scholar
3. Rajtukova, V, Hudak, R, Zivcak, J, Halfarova, P, Kudrikova, R. Pressure distribution in transtibial prostheses socket and the stump interface. Procedia Eng 2014;96:374–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.106.Search in Google Scholar
4. Hepburn, C. Polyurethane elastomers. Barking, England: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.Search in Google Scholar
5. Kapp, S, Miller, JA, Pasquina, PF, Cooper, RA. Lower limb prosthetics. In: Pasquina, PF, Cooper, RA. Care of the combat amputee. Washington, DC: Borden Institute; 2009:553–80 pp.Search in Google Scholar
6. 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;41:591. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2004.04.0591.Search in Google Scholar
7. Arifin, N, Hasbollah, HR, Hanafi, MH, Ibrahim, A, Wan Abdul Rahman, WA, Che Aziz, R. Provision of prosthetic services following lower limb amputation in Malaysia. Malays J Med Sci 2017;24:106–11. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2017.24.5.12.Search in Google Scholar
8. Rahman, WA, Arifin, N, Hasbollah, HR, Hafiz, A, Ibrahim, MHH, Aziz, RC. Prosthetics services for lower-limb amputation: public versus private healthcare in Malaysia. Int J Emerg Trends Sci Technol 2017;4:6245–9.10.18535/ijetst/v4i10.10Search in Google Scholar
9. Gholizadeh, H, Abu Osman, NA, Eshraghi, A, Ali, S, Sævarsson, SK, Wan Abas, WA, et al.. Transtibial prosthetic suspension: less pistoning versus easy donning and doffing. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012;49:1321–30. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2011.11.0221.Search in Google Scholar
10. Eshraghi, A, Abu Osman, NA, Gholizadeh, H, Karimi, M, Ali, S. Pistoning assessment in lower limb prosthetic sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int 2012;36:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364611431625.Search in Google Scholar
11. Vanicek, N, Strike, S, McNaughton, L, Polman, R. Gait patterns in transtibial amputee fallers vs. non-fallers: biomechanical differences during level walking. Gait Posture 2009;29:415–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.10.062.Search in Google Scholar
12. Mohd Hawari, N, Jawaid, M, Md Tahir, P, Azmeer, RA. Case study: survey of patient satisfaction with prosthesis quality and design among below-knee prosthetic leg socket users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2017;12:868–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2016.1269209.Search in Google Scholar
13. Ali, S, Abu Osman, NA, Arifin, N, Gholizadeh, H, Razak, A, Anwar, N, et al.. Comparative study between dermo, pelite, and seal-in x5 liners: effect on patient’s satisfaction and perceived problems. Sci World J 2014;2014:769810. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/769810.Search in Google Scholar
14. Baars, EC, Schrier, E, Dijkstra, PU, Geertzen, JH. Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees: a systematic review of associated factors and questionnaires. Medicine 2018;97:e12296. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000012296.Search in Google Scholar
15. Dickinson, AS, Steer, JW, Worsley, PR. Finite element analysis of the amputated lower limb: a systematic review and recommendations. Med Eng Phys 2017;43:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.02.008.Search in Google Scholar
16. Hsu, CH, Ou, CH, Hong, WL, Gao, YH. Comfort level discussion for prosthetic sockets with different fabricating processing conditions. Biomed Eng Online 2018;17:145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0577-2.Search in Google Scholar
17. Ankrom, MA, Bennett, RG, Sprigle, S, Langemo, D, Black, JM, Berlowitz, DR, et al.. Pressure‐related deep tissue injury under intact skin and the current pressure ulcer staging systems. Adv Skin Wound Care 2005;18:35–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129334-200501000-00016.Search in Google Scholar
18. Lannan, FM, Meyerle, JH. The dermatologist’s role in amputee skin care. Cutis 2019;103:86.Search in Google Scholar
19. Wolf, SI, Alimusaj, M, Fradet, L, Siegel, J, Braatz, F. Pressure characteristics at the stump/socket interface in transtibial amputees using an adaptive prosthetic foot. Clin Biomech 2009;24:860–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.08.007.Search in Google Scholar
20. Holzapfel, GA, Ogden, RW. On planar biaxial tests for anisotropic nonlinearly elastic solids. A continuum mechanical framework. Math Mech Solids 2009;14:474–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081286507084411.Search in Google Scholar
21. Feng, Y, Lee, CH, Sun, L, Ji, S, Zhao, X. Characterizing white matter tissue in large strain via asymmetric indentation and inverse finite element modeling. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;65:490–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.09.020.Search in Google Scholar
22. ASTM 2006. Standard test methods for rubber properties in compression or shear (mechanical oscillograph). West Conshohocken,PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard No. ASTM D945-06.Search in Google Scholar
23. ASTM 2008. Standard test method for vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic elastomer determination of force decay (stress relaxation) in compression. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard No. ASTM D6147-97.Search in Google Scholar
24. ASTM. Standard test methods for vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic elastomers–tension. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2008, Standard No.ASTM D412-06a.Search in Google Scholar
25. Dalrymple, T, Choi, J, Miller, K. Elastomer rate-dependence: a testing and material modeling methodology. In: 172nd Technical meeting of the rubber division of the American Chemical Society (ACS), Cleveland, OH; 2007.Search in Google Scholar
26. Boutwell, E, Stine, R, Tucker, K. Effect of prosthetic gel liner thickness on gait biomechanics and pressure distribution within the transtibial socket. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012;49:227. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2010.06.0121.Search in Google Scholar
27. Courtney, A, Orendurff, MS, Buis, A. Effect of alignment perturbations in a trans-tibial prosthesis user: a pilot study. J Rehabil Med 2016;48:396–401. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2075.Search in Google Scholar
28. Sanders, J, Greve, J, Clinton, C, Hafner, B. Clinical study: changes in interface pressure and stump shape over time: preliminary results from a trans‐tibial amputee subject. Prosthet Orthot Int 2000;24:163–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640008726539.Search in Google Scholar
29. Sanders, J, Zachariah, S, Baker, A, Greve, J, Clinton, C. Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees. Clin Biomech 2000;15:684–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0268-0033(00)00026-7.Search in Google Scholar
30. Sanders, J, Fergason, J, Zachariah, S, Jacobsen, A. Case study: interface pressure and shear stress changes with amputee weight loss: case studies from two trans‐tibial amputee subjects. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002;26:243–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640208726654.Search in Google Scholar
31. Sanders, J, Zachariah, S, Jacobsen, A, Fergason, J. Changes in interface pressures and shear stresses over time on trans-tibial amputee subjects ambulating with prosthetic limbs: comparison of diurnal and six-month differences. J Biomech 2005;38:1566–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.08.008.Search in Google Scholar
32. Ali, S, Abu Osman, NA, Mortaza, N, Eshraghi, A, Gholizadeh, H, Abas, WAB. Clinical investigation of the interface pressure in the trans-tibial socket with Dermo and Seal-In X5 liner during walking and their effect on patient satisfaction. Clin Biomech 2012;27:943–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.06.004.Search in Google Scholar
33. Cagle, JC, Reinhall, PG, Allyn, KJ, McLean, J, Hinrichs, P, Hafner, BJ, et al.. A finite element model to assess transtibial prosthetic sockets with elastomeric liners. Med Biol Eng Comput 2018;56:1227–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-017-1758-z.Search in Google Scholar
34. Zhang, M, Lord, M, Turner-Smith, AR, Roberts, VC. Development of a non-linear finite element modelling of the below-knee prosthetic socket interface. Med Eng Phys 1995;17:559–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/1350-4533(95)00002-5.Search in Google Scholar
35. 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;35:161.Search in Google Scholar
36. Witkiewicz, W, Zieliński, A. Properties of the polyurethane (PU) light foams. Adv Mater Sci 2006;6:35–51.Search in Google Scholar
37. Sanders, JE, Nicholson, BS, Zachariah, SG, Cassisi, DV. Testing of elastomeric liners used in limb prosthetics: classification of 15 products by mechanical performance. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004;41:175–6. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2004.02.0175.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Review
- Surrogate based continuous noninvasive blood pressure measurement
- Research Articles
- Smart automated heart health monitoring using photoplethysmography signal classification
- In vivo evaluation of two adaptive Starling-like control algorithms for left ventricular assist devices
- A patient-independent classification system for onset detection of seizures
- Prediction of salivary cortisol level by electroencephalography features
- Confocal laser microscopy without fluorescent dye in minimal-invasive thoracic surgery: an ex-vivo pilot study in lung cancer
- Spinal cord segmentation and injury detection using a Crow Search-Rider optimization algorithm
- Experimental and numerical investigations of fracture and fatigue behaviour of implant-supported bars with distal extension made of three different materials
- Compression and tension behavior of the prosthetic foam materials polyurethane, EVA, Pelite™ and a combination of polyurethane and EVA: a preliminary study
- Evaluation of a novel stair-climbing transportation aid for emergency medical services
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Review
- Surrogate based continuous noninvasive blood pressure measurement
- Research Articles
- Smart automated heart health monitoring using photoplethysmography signal classification
- In vivo evaluation of two adaptive Starling-like control algorithms for left ventricular assist devices
- A patient-independent classification system for onset detection of seizures
- Prediction of salivary cortisol level by electroencephalography features
- Confocal laser microscopy without fluorescent dye in minimal-invasive thoracic surgery: an ex-vivo pilot study in lung cancer
- Spinal cord segmentation and injury detection using a Crow Search-Rider optimization algorithm
- Experimental and numerical investigations of fracture and fatigue behaviour of implant-supported bars with distal extension made of three different materials
- Compression and tension behavior of the prosthetic foam materials polyurethane, EVA, Pelite™ and a combination of polyurethane and EVA: a preliminary study
- Evaluation of a novel stair-climbing transportation aid for emergency medical services
