Comparison of vacuum‐formed removable rigid dressing with conventional rigid dressing after transtibial amputation

Figures & data

Figure 1. The residual limb placed on the posterior shell of the ORD. B) The ORD after removal of all air and its application completed. C) The ORD opened for wound inspection.

Figure 2. Flow chart of the trial.

Table 1.  Characteristics of the patients in the two groups

	O group (n = 13)	C group (n = 10)
Age, mean	76	76
(range)	(45–91)	(43–89)
Sex, male:female	9:4	5:5
Smoker, never:current:previous	5:2:6	6:2:2
Diabetes mellitus	6	6
Other medical conditions
Cardiac disease	12	8
Neurological disease	4	2
Hip or knee disease	2	2
Other joint disease	1	3
Hip replacement	2	1

O: vacuum‐formed rigid dressing;

C: conventional rigid dressing.

Table 2.  Outcome regarding days to prosthetic fitting and function with prosthesis

Outcome variable	O group (n = 13) a mean (SD) median		C group (n = 10) mean (SD) median		Mean difference (95% CI) b
Time to prosthetic fitting (days)	37 (7)	37	34 (8)	33	4 (-2–11)
LCI (points)
Total	28 (14)	32	25 (13)	22	-0.1 (-8.5–8.2)
Basic	17 (6)	20	16 (6)	17	-1.1 (-4.5–2.3)
Advanced	12 (9)	12	9 (7)	7	0.9 (-4.7–6.6)
TUG (seconds)	41 (24)	36	29 (14)	33	14 (-2–30)

^a(n = 12) for analyses of LCI and TUG (1 patient died before follow‐up).

^bAdjusted for age and sex.

O: vacuum‐formed rigid dressing; C: conventional rigid dressing;

LCI: locomotor capability index (higher score, 0 to 42 for Total and 0 to 21 for Basic and Advanced, indicates better function with prosthesis);

TUG: Timed “Up and Go” (rise from chair, walk 3 meters, and return to chair).

Figure 3. Schematic illustration describing the outcome in the ORD (O) group and the conventional rigid dressing (C) group.