458 KB17 KB200820252016Burger, HelenaErzar, DominikMlakar, Majaštevilka:1letnik:15str. 24-28ISSN:1580-9315COBISSID:2174057URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-WIRPHO4CslUniverzitetni rehabilitacijski inštitut Slovenije - SočaRehabilitacija (Ljubljana)nadkolenska amputacijanadkolenska protezaprotezno ležiščesockettranstibial amputationtranstibial prosthesisPrimerjava dveh načinov odvzema mere za ležišče s popolnim stikom za protezo po nadkolenski amputaciji| Comparison of two measurement procedures for prosthetic socket after transtibial amputation|Background: The prerequisite for a good prosthetic socket is proper and accurate casting. The aim of our study was to compare sockets made by casting with plaster of Paris and by the Center for International Rehabilitation (CIR) system. Methods: Persons after transtibial amputation who were able to walk with their prosthesis for at least 500 meters, had no wounds on the stump and were willing to participate were included into the study. All the participants were casted by plaster of Paris and the CIR system. For both casting methods we measured casting time, time for cast rectification, number of required corrections, antero-posterior (AP) and medio-lateral (ML) measure, knee circumferences at the patellar-tendon-bearing level, head of fibula and at the end of the stump. We also measured length of the stump. Results: Casting time and rectification time were statistically significantly shorter with the CIR system (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively) than with plaster of Paris. Fewer cast rectification were needed with the CIR system (3.25 rectifications with CIR on average and 3.88 rectifications with plaster of Paris on average). All other measures were statistically significantly different from the measurements of the stump. The sockets made by casting with plaster of Paris were statistically significantly more comfortable (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Casting time and rectification time were shorter with the CIR system, but the sockets produced using this system were less comfortableIzhodišča: Osnova za pravilno izdelano ležišče proteze je pravilno odvzeta mera. Namen naše študije je bil primerjava klasičnega načina odvzema mere z mavčnimi povoji z odvzemom mere z vakumskim sistemom Center for International Rehabilitation (CIR) in udobnosti obeh proteznih ležišč. Metode: V raziskavo smo vključili osebe po transtibialni amputaciji, ki so že imele protezo, so s protezo dnevno prehodile najmanj 500 m, na krnu niso imele rane in so bile pripravljene sodelovati. Vsem osebam smo odvzeli mero z mavčnimi povoji in z vakumskim sistemom CIR. Merili smo čas potreben za meritev in nato čas obdelave modela, število potrebnih prilagoditev na modelu, antero-posteriorno (AP), medio-lateralno (ML) mero, obsege kolena na ligamentu pogačice, preko glavice mečnice in distalno na koncu krna ter dolžini obeh modelov. Rezultati: S sistemom CIR sta bila čas meritve in čas za obdelavo modela statistična značilno krajša (p < 0,001; p = 0,002) kot pri meritvi z mavčnimi povoji, potrebnih je bilo manj prilagoditev modela (CIR povprečje 3,25 modifikacij, mavčni povoji povprečje 3,88 prilagoditev; p = 0,049). Vse ostale mere so se statistično značilno razlikovale od mer krna. Statistično značilno bolj udobna (p < 0,001) so bila protezna ležišča, narejena po odvzemu mere z mavčnimi povoji. Zaključki: Sistem CIR skrajša čas meritve in čas obdelave modela, vendar je protezno ležišče za uporabnika manj udobno od proteznega ležišča, ki je izdelano na klasičen načinTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverzitetni rehabilitacijski inštitut RS – Soča