Abstract
Thirty‐two (32) trained prosthesis users with 34 trans‐tibial amputations, mostly due to war, were fitted with prostheses fabricated from polypropylene (PP) prosthetic components designed and manufactured by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The patients were followed prospectively for 10 and 19 months. All but one patient had at least one other type of prosthesis to compare with.
Twenty‐eight (28) patients were satisfied with the PP prosthesis. Among these 23 found the PP prosthesis the preferred artificial limb, and one patient found the PP limb equal to the aluminium prosthesis previously in use. In 6/28 patients having an aluminium (ALU) prostheses this was found the best, and the 1 already mentioned found it equivalent to the new technology. In only 1/20 cases having an Automated Fabrication of Mobility Aids (AFMA) prosthesis available this was found the best. One (1) double‐amputee found all three designs equal.
Minor failures of the PP prostheses were encountered; in 4 cases small cracks in the hard socket; in 3 cases cracks of the cosmetic socket seam. From an overall prospect the PP technology can be recommended for trans‐tibial prostheses.