Conventional and hydrostatic transtibial interface comparison

Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 85-91

  Kahle, Jason T ^a  

^a Hanger P and O   (United States)

Author keywords

Hydrostatic interface; Total surface bearing interface; Transtibial interface

Indexed keywords

EID: 22844456048     PISSN: 10408800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00008526-199901140-00004     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Narita H, Yokogushi K, Shii S, Kakizawa M, Nosaka T. Suspension effect and dynamic evaluation of the total surface bearing trans-tibial prosthesis: a comparison with the patellar tendon bearing trans-tibial prosthesis. Prosthe Orthot Int. 1997;21:175-178.
2. Kristinsson O. The ICEROSS concept: a discussion of a philosophy. Prosth Orthot Int. 1993;17:49-55.
3. Ohio Willow Wood Company. Alpha Liner Technical Manual. Mt. Sterling, Ohio:
4. TEC Interface Systems. TEC Liner Instructional Manual. Waite Park, Minnesota:
5. Streeter V, Wylie EB. Advanced Mechanics of Fluids. 1959, reprint 1976; fluid mechanics 7 ed., 1979.
6. Rogers J, Wilson L. Preventing recurrent tissue breakdowns after "pressure sore" closures. Plast Reconstr Surg. October 1975; 419-422.
7. Long, Ivan A. Normal shape- normal alignment (NSNA) above-knee prosthesis. Clin Prosthet Orthotics. 1985;9 (4):9-14.
8. Buis AWP. Dynamic Interface Pressure Measurement: Comparing Two Trans-tibial Socket Concepts, 1997. Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom: National Center for Training and Education and Prosthetics and Orthotics, University of Strathclyde; 1997.
9. Ossur HF. ICEX Technical Manual. Reykjavic, Iceland; 1996.
10. Northwestern Technical Manual. Chicago, Illinois: Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Northwestern University, 1993, section 5.