A team of researchers conducted a scoping review of studies comparing the effectiveness of shape capture and socket design techniques for transtibial and transfemoral prostheses. The review sought studies that compared manual, hybrid, and digital methods, while the researchers identified the measurement tools used and assessed the methodological quality.
Evaluations of effectiveness included clinical and functional outcomes such as socket fit, comfort, and user function, and cost-effectiveness reflected the balance between resource use and these outcomes. The researchers systematically searched five databases for studies involving humans with transtibial or transfemoral prostheses that compared at least two of the three methods and reported effectiveness outcomes.
Of 556 articles screened, 20 met the inclusion criteria (497 participants). Sixteen studies evaluated transtibial prostheses and four evaluated transfemoral prostheses. Manual and hybrid methods were compared in 14 studies, and digital and manual methods in six; none compared hybrid and digital methods. The research team rated 18 studies were rated as low quality, two as moderate, and none as high.
Effectiveness constructs mainly covered the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains of body functions and body structures and activities and participation, but many were not clearly defined, according to the review. Reported outcomes most often addressed production time, number of socket attempts, and socket fit or comfort.
Overall, the authors concluded that evidence remains limited and inconsistent, with a clear lack of direct comparisons between digital and hybrid techniques, and that hybrid and digital approaches may improve efficiency and comfort compared with manual methods, but robust, standardized research is needed.
The open-access study, “Comparisons of (cost-)effectiveness of manual, hybrid, and digital shape capture and shape design techniques for transtibial and transfemoral prosthetic sockets: A scoping review,” was published in Prosthetics and Orthotics International.
