This proof of concept evaluates socket comfort in amputees using a novel pneumatic actuator accommodating limb volume change, indicating significant improvements.
Background: Accommodating for residual limb volume change among lower limb prosthesis users remains a persistent challenge. Pressurizing a pneumatic flexible matrix composite actuator (P-FMC) increases the thickness of the P-FMC. Thus, when a P-FMC is integrated into the interior wall of a prosthetic socket, increasing the P-FMC pressure effectively decreases the volume of the socket and enables accommodation for limb volume change. Importantly, the P-FMCs maintain high stiffness when pressurized, thus retaining stiff interface with the limb. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate socket comfort during the use of a transtibial socket with integrated novel P-FMCs. Methods: A single male participant had a custom P-FMC socket fabricated with three integrated P-FMCs for localized volume accommodation. The participant used the P-FMC socket while completing three cycles of a physical activity regimen involving 5 minutes of walking, 5 minutes of sitting, and 10 minutes of standing. During each cycle, a different P-FMC pressure control scheme was used. Cycle 1 involved maintaining the P-FMC pressure at a fixed 20 psi throughout all three activities and served as a baseline. Cycle 2 involved adjusting the P-FMC pressure according to the activity. Cycle 3 involved adjusting the P-FMC pressure according to the participant’s preference. Results: Socket comfort scores improved in Cycles 2 and 3 compared to Cycle 1, suggesting the P-FMC socket’s ability to modulate P-FMC pressure improved socket comfort. Conclusions: These results support further investigation of P-FMCs to accommodate for residual limb volume change. Clinical Relevance: A novel pneumatic composite actuator integrated into the interior wall of a prosthetic socket has the potential to help maintain socket fit and user function despite limb volume change. Key attributes of these actuators are that they maintain a high stiffness when actuated and are amenable to automatic control in future applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hada et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: