Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Prosthetic Limb Components

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Prosthetic Limb Components

Comprehensive guide to prosthetic limb components - socket types (PTB, TSB, quadrilateral, ischial containment), suspension systems, knee units (single-axis, polycentric, microprocessor), prosthetic feet (SACH, dynamic response), upper limb prosthetics, K-levels for orthopaedic exam

complete
Updated: 2026-01-08
High Yield Overview

PROSTHETIC LIMB COMPONENTS

Socket Design | Suspension Systems | Knee Units | Prosthetic Feet | Upper Limb Prosthetics

K0-K4Medicare Functional Classification Levels
PTBTraditional transtibial socket design
TSBTotal Surface Bearing - modern design
70-80%Energy return from dynamic response feet

K-LEVEL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

K0
PatternNon-ambulatory, cannot use prosthesis
TreatmentCosmetic prosthesis or wheelchair
K1
PatternLimited household ambulator
TreatmentBasic components, SACH foot, single-axis knee
K2
PatternLimited community ambulator
TreatmentIntermediate components, multi-axis foot
K3
PatternUnlimited community ambulator, variable cadence
TreatmentAdvanced components, dynamic response foot, hydraulic knee
K4
PatternActive athlete, high-impact activities
TreatmentMicroprocessor knee, carbon fiber foot, specialized sports prosthetics

Critical Must-Knows

  • Socket types: PTB (patellar tendon bearing) vs TSB (total surface bearing) for transtibial; quadrilateral vs ischial containment for transfemoral
  • Suspension systems: Pin lock (mechanical), suction (seal-in liner), vacuum (active pump), sleeve (neoprene/gel)
  • Knee units: Single-axis (simple, durable), polycentric (stability), hydraulic/pneumatic (cadence responsive), microprocessor (C-Leg, Genium)
  • Prosthetic feet: SACH (solid ankle cushion heel), single/multi-axis, dynamic response (energy storing/returning)
  • K-levels (K0-K4) determine component prescription - match complexity to functional capacity

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    TSB socket distributes load over entire residual limb vs PTB which concentrates on patellar tendon
  • "
    Ischial containment socket provides better femoral control than quadrilateral
  • "
    Microprocessor knees (C-Leg) reduce falls by 64% compared to mechanical knees
  • "
    Energy-storing feet return 70-80% of stored energy during push-off

Critical Prosthetic Components Exam Points

Socket Fit Problems

Volume fluctuation is the most common socket problem - residual limb shrinks with weight loss, expands with edema. Pistoning (vertical movement) indicates poor suspension or socket looseness. Skin breakdown occurs at pressure points - check socket fit, liner condition, and hygiene. All require prosthetist review and socket adjustment.

Knee Unit Selection

Match knee complexity to K-level. K1-K2: Single-axis or polycentric mechanical knee. K3: Hydraulic or pneumatic (cadence responsive). K4 or high falls risk: Microprocessor knee (C-Leg, Genium). Microprocessor knees detect stumble and resist buckling - proven to reduce falls by 64%.

Prosthetic Foot Selection

SACH foot: Simple, durable, low activity (K1). Single-axis: Allows plantarflexion for knee stability (K1-K2). Multi-axis foot: Terrain adaptation (K2-K3). Dynamic response (energy-storing): Carbon fiber, returns energy for efficient gait (K3-K4). Match foot to activity level and terrain requirements.

Upper Limb Prosthetics

Body-powered: Cable-operated, reliable, provides proprioceptive feedback, lower cost. Myoelectric: EMG-controlled, cosmetically superior, higher grip strength. Terminal devices: Hooks (functional, durable) vs hands (cosmetic, complex). Higher rejection rates in upper limb than lower limb prosthetics.

Prosthetic Knee Unit Types - Comprehensive Comparison

Knee TypeMechanismBest For (K-Level)AdvantagesDisadvantages
Single-axisSimple hinge with friction controlK1-K2 (limited ambulators)Durable, low maintenance, inexpensiveNo cadence response, manual lock often needed
Polycentric (4-bar)Multiple pivot points, shortens in swingK2-K3 (stability needed)Inherent stance stability, toe clearance in swingHeavier, more complex mechanism
HydraulicFluid resistance varies with speedK3 (variable cadence)Cadence-responsive, smooth gait at all speedsHeavier, requires maintenance, more expensive
PneumaticAir resistance varies with speedK3 (lighter option)Lighter than hydraulic, cadence-responsiveLess resistance range than hydraulic
Microprocessor (C-Leg, Genium)Sensors detect gait phase, adjust resistanceK3-K4 or falls riskStumble recovery, stairs descent, reduced fallsExpensive, battery dependent, requires training
Mnemonic

K-LEVELSK-Level Functional Classification

K
K0 - No ambulation
Cannot use prosthesis for ambulation, cosmetic only
L
Limited K1
Household ambulator, transfers and limited walking
E
Extended K2
Limited community ambulator, low-level activity
V
Variable K3
Unlimited community ambulator, variable cadence
E
Extreme K4
Active athlete, exceeds basic ambulation
L
Link to components
Higher K-level = more advanced components
S
Scripted by function
Match prosthetic complexity to actual ability

Memory Hook:K-LEVELS tell you what components to prescribe - higher level, higher technology

Mnemonic

PTB vs TSBSocket Types for Transtibial

P
Patellar tendon bearing
Traditional design, weight on patellar tendon
T
Total contact
Full contact with residual limb reduces edema
B
Bony prominences offloaded
Fibular head, tibial crest, distal tibia padded
T
Total surface bearing
Modern design distributes pressure evenly
S
Suction or pin suspension
Liner creates seal for suspension
B
Better comfort often
More uniform pressure, less point loading

Memory Hook:PTB focuses on patellar tendon, TSB spreads load over Total Surface - both maintain full contact

Mnemonic

SACH-MDRProsthetic Foot Types

S
SACH - Solid Ankle Cushion Heel
Simple, no moving parts, compressible heel
A
Axis feet - single or multi
Articulating joints for motion
C
Comfort for low activity
SACH ideal for K1 limited ambulators
H
Heel cushion absorbs impact
Simulates ankle plantarflexion at heel strike
M
Multi-axis for terrain
Inversion, eversion, rotation for uneven ground
D
Dynamic response (carbon fiber)
Energy-storing, returns 70-80% at push-off
R
Running and sports use
High activity K3-K4 require energy return

Memory Hook:Start Simple with SACH, Add Motion with axes, go Dynamic for high activity

Mnemonic

PINSSuspension Systems

P
Pin lock suspension
Shuttle lock engages pin on liner - simple, reliable
I
Intimate fit required
All suspension requires well-fitting socket
N
Negative pressure (suction/vacuum)
Suction seal or active vacuum pump creates hold
S
Sleeve suspension
Neoprene or gel sleeve over socket and thigh

Memory Hook:PINS hold the prosthesis on - choose based on activity level and residual limb

Overview and Prosthetic Fundamentals

Prosthetic limb components are the elements that make up an artificial limb system. Understanding these components is essential for orthopaedic surgeons involved in amputation surgery and post-operative rehabilitation planning.

Key Principles of Prosthetic Prescription:

  1. Match components to functional level - K-level classification guides selection
  2. Socket fit is paramount - the interface between residual limb and prosthesis
  3. Suspension must be reliable - prevents pistoning and skin breakdown
  4. Knee and foot selection affects gait efficiency - higher function = more advanced components
  5. Early prosthetist involvement - ideally preoperative for optimal stump planning

The Prosthetic Prescription Hierarchy

Components are prescribed based on the K-Level functional classification. K0: No prosthetic ambulation. K1: Basic components for limited household use. K2: Intermediate components for limited community ambulation. K3: Advanced components for unlimited community ambulation with variable cadence. K4: High-activity components for athletes. Over-prescribing wastes resources; under-prescribing limits function.

Basic Prosthetic Anatomy:

Lower Limb Prosthesis Components

  1. Socket: Interface with residual limb (most critical component)
  2. Liner: Cushioning layer between skin and socket
  3. Suspension system: Keeps prosthesis attached
  4. Pylon/shank: Connects socket to foot (or knee to foot)
  5. Knee unit (transfemoral): Controls swing and stance
  6. Prosthetic foot: Ground contact and energy return

Upper Limb Prosthesis Components

  1. Socket: Interface with residual limb
  2. Suspension: Harness or suction
  3. Elbow unit (transhumeral): Controls flexion/extension
  4. Wrist unit: Allows pronation/supination, quick disconnect
  5. Terminal device: Hook or hand for function/cosmesis
  6. Control system: Body-powered cables or myoelectric

Socket Design Principles

The socket is the most critical component of any prosthesis - it is the interface between the residual limb and the artificial limb. Poor socket fit leads to skin breakdown, pain, and prosthetic rejection.

Socket Design Goals

  1. Comfortable weight distribution - pressure on tolerant areas, relief over sensitive areas
  2. Stable suspension - prevents pistoning and rotation
  3. Proprioceptive feedback - allows control of prosthesis
  4. Cosmesis - acceptable appearance
  5. Durability - withstands daily use

Transtibial Socket Designs

PTB (Patellar Tendon Bearing) Socket:

  • Traditional design developed in 1950s
  • Weight-bearing concentrated on patellar tendon
  • Pressure-tolerant areas: patellar tendon, medial tibial flare, popliteal area
  • Pressure-sensitive areas (relieved): fibular head, tibial crest, distal tibia
  • Total contact maintained for edema control

TSB (Total Surface Bearing) Socket:

  • Modern design distributing pressure uniformly
  • No specific weight-bearing focus
  • Uses gel liner to distribute pressure
  • Hydrostatic loading principle - equal pressure throughout
  • Often combined with suction or vacuum suspension

Socket Variations:

  • PTB-SC (Supracondylar): Extended medial-lateral walls for rotational control
  • PTB-SCSP (Supracondylar Suprapatellar): Higher anterior trim for suspension
  • KBM (Kondylen Bettung Munster): Intimate medial-lateral contouring

PTB vs TSB Socket Design

PTB: Focuses weight on patellar tendon with relief areas. Traditional, still widely used. TSB: Distributes pressure over entire surface using gel liner. More comfortable for many patients. Both maintain total contact - the entire residual limb touches the socket to prevent distal edema.

Transfemoral Socket Designs

Quadrilateral Socket:

  • Traditional design (1950s-1980s)
  • Square-shaped brim with ischial tuberosity on posterior shelf
  • Adductor longus channel anteriorly
  • Lateral wall at greater trochanter
  • Creates 4 distinct walls
  • Less anatomical, may allow femoral adduction

Ischial Containment (IC) Socket:

  • Modern design (1980s-present)
  • Ischial tuberosity and ramus contained within socket
  • Narrow medial-lateral dimension
  • More anatomical femoral alignment
  • Better control of femur in adduction
  • Improved stability and control

CAT-CAM Socket:

  • Contoured Adducted Trochanteric - Controlled Alignment Method
  • Variant of ischial containment
  • Emphasizes femoral adduction alignment
  • Narrow ML, wider AP dimension
  • Improved muscle function and gait efficiency

Ischial Containment Advantages

Ischial containment sockets provide superior femoral control compared to quadrilateral design:

  1. Maintains femur in adduction (anatomical alignment)
  2. Better gluteal muscle function
  3. Improved stance phase stability
  4. More efficient gait pattern
  5. Better proprioception and control

This is the modern standard for active transfemoral amputees.

Common Socket Fit Problems

Volume Fluctuation:

  • Most common socket problem
  • Residual limb volume changes throughout day
  • Causes: weight loss/gain, edema, muscle atrophy
  • Morning limb smaller (after night without prosthesis)
  • Management: Sock ply adjustment, liner change, socket modification

Pistoning:

  • Vertical movement of residual limb within socket
  • Indicates: Socket too large, inadequate suspension
  • Consequences: Skin shear, blistering, reduced control
  • Management: Add socks, check suspension, socket adjustment

Skin Breakdown:

  • Pressure ulcers at bony prominences
  • Shear injuries from pistoning
  • Friction blisters from socket movement
  • Folliculitis from poor hygiene
  • Management: Identify cause, socket modification, wound care

Residual Limb Pain:

  • Neuroma at weight-bearing point
  • Bone spur
  • Heterotopic ossification
  • Poor socket fit
  • Management: Investigate cause, socket modification, may need surgery

Suspension Systems

Suspension keeps the prosthesis securely attached to the residual limb. Inadequate suspension leads to pistoning, reduced control, and skin problems.

Prosthetic Suspension Systems Comparison

Suspension TypeMechanismAdvantagesDisadvantagesBest For
Pin lock (shuttle lock)Pin on liner engages lock in socketSimple, secure, easy don/doffPistoning possible, milking effect on tissuesK1-K2, limited dexterity
Suction (seal-in liner)Sealing lip on liner creates vacuumIntimate fit, good suspensionDifficult don/doff, requires intact linerK2-K3, good hand function
Vacuum (elevated vacuum)Active pump maintains negative pressureExcellent suspension, volume managementExpensive, battery dependent, complexK3-K4, volume fluctuation issues
Sleeve suspensionNeoprene or gel sleeve over socket rimSimple, inexpensive, adds stabilityHot, may irritate skin, stretches over timeAdditional suspension, K1-K2
Anatomical suspensionSocket contour locks over bony prominencesNo additional hardware neededRequires specific residual limb anatomyKnee disarticulation, Syme

Suspension Selection Principles

Active Patients (K3-K4)

  • Suction or vacuum suspension preferred
  • Intimate fit maximizes control
  • Vacuum systems help with volume management
  • Worth the complexity for high-activity users
  • Consider elevated vacuum for variable activity

Less Active Patients (K1-K2)

  • Pin lock often most practical
  • Easy donning/doffing
  • Simple mechanism to understand
  • Less reliance on hand dexterity
  • Sleeve suspension as adjunct

Elevated Vacuum Suspension Benefits

Vacuum suspension with active pump provides:

  1. Consistent negative pressure maintaining fit
  2. Reduces volume fluctuation effects
  3. Decreases pistoning significantly
  4. Improves proprioceptive feedback
  5. May improve residual limb health

Ideal for active amputees with volume management issues. More expensive and complex than passive systems.

Prosthetic Knee Units

Knee units are required for transfemoral, knee disarticulation, and hip disarticulation amputees. The knee must provide stability in stance and controlled motion in swing phase.

Mechanical Knee Units

Single-Axis Knee:

  • Simplest design - single pivot point
  • Friction or manual lock controls motion
  • Weight-activated stance control (some models)
  • Durable, low maintenance, inexpensive
  • Suitable for K1-K2 ambulators
  • No cadence response - single walking speed

Polycentric (Multi-Axis) Knee:

  • Multiple pivot points (typically 4-bar linkage)
  • Instantaneous center of rotation moves during flexion
  • Inherent geometric stability in stance
  • Shortens in swing phase (improved toe clearance)
  • Good for long residual limbs, knee disarticulation
  • More stable than single-axis

Manual Locking Knee:

  • Locked in full extension during stance
  • Manually unlocked for sitting
  • Maximum stability for weak or nervous ambulators
  • Limited to K0-K1 function
  • Stiff-legged gait

Polycentric Knee Advantages

Four-bar polycentric knees offer:

  1. Inherent stance stability (center of rotation posterior to weight line)
  2. Functional shortening in swing (toe clearance)
  3. Cosmetic sitting position (posterior displacement)
  4. Good for longer residual limbs

Ideal for knee disarticulation or nervous ambulators needing stability.

Hydraulic and Pneumatic Knee Units

Hydraulic Knee:

  • Uses hydraulic fluid to control resistance
  • Resistance varies with speed of movement
  • Allows walking at different cadences
  • Smooth, natural gait pattern
  • Heavier than mechanical knees
  • Requires periodic maintenance
  • Best for K3 community ambulators

Pneumatic Knee:

  • Uses air (pneumatic cylinder) for resistance
  • Lighter than hydraulic
  • Cadence-responsive but less resistance range
  • Less precise control than hydraulic
  • Good intermediate option

Cadence Response Principle:

  • Faster walking = more resistance (prevents knee collapse)
  • Slower walking = less resistance (allows flexion)
  • Mimics natural gait at various speeds
  • Major advantage over mechanical knees

Hydraulic vs Pneumatic Knees

Hydraulic: More resistance range, smoother control, heavier, more maintenance. Pneumatic: Lighter, simpler, but less precise control. Both provide cadence response - essential for K3 ambulators who walk at varying speeds.

Microprocessor-Controlled Knee Units

C-Leg (Otto Bock):

  • First commercially successful microprocessor knee
  • Sensors detect gait phase 50 times per second
  • Adjusts hydraulic resistance in real-time
  • Stumble recovery - resists sudden flexion
  • Stair descent step-over-step possible
  • Proven 64% reduction in falls

Genium (Otto Bock):

  • Advanced microprocessor knee
  • Sensors include gyroscope and accelerometer
  • Pre-swing intuition (anticipates swing phase)
  • Natural stair ascent possible
  • Adjusts to inclines automatically
  • More natural gait pattern

Rheo Knee (Ossur):

  • Uses magnetorheological fluid
  • Particles align in magnetic field to change resistance
  • Very fast response time
  • Smooth, intuitive control

Power Knee:

  • Active (motorized) knee extension
  • Assists with stair climbing, standing from sitting
  • Higher energy availability
  • Heavier, more complex, battery dependent

Microprocessor Knee Indications

Consider microprocessor knee for:

  1. K3-K4 ambulators requiring variable cadence
  2. High falls risk patients (proven 64% reduction)
  3. Active community ambulators with demanding terrain
  4. Stair and slope negotiation requirements

Cost-benefit: More expensive but reduced falls means fewer fractures, hospitalizations, and healthcare costs.

Prosthetic Feet

The prosthetic foot provides ground contact, shock absorption, and energy return during gait. Selection depends on activity level, terrain requirements, and patient goals.

SACH and Basic Prosthetic Feet

SACH Foot (Solid Ankle Cushion Heel):

  • Simplest prosthetic foot design
  • No moving parts - solid construction
  • Compressible foam heel cushion
  • Simulates ankle plantarflexion at heel strike
  • Rigid forefoot (keel) for push-off
  • Durable, low maintenance, inexpensive
  • Suitable for K1 limited ambulators

SAFE Foot (Stationary Ankle Flexible Endoskeleton):

  • SACH variant with flexible keel
  • Allows some forefoot flexibility
  • Smoother rollover than rigid SACH
  • Still no moving parts

Key Features of SACH:

  • Heel durometer (hardness) selected for body weight
  • Softer heel for lighter/less active patients
  • Firmer heel for heavier/more active patients
  • Waterproof, minimal maintenance

SACH Foot Mechanism

The SACH foot has no ankle joint. Ankle motion is simulated:

  • Heel strike: Compressible heel cushion plantarflexes to absorb impact
  • Midstance: Rigid structure provides stability
  • Push-off: Stiff forefoot keel provides lever for propulsion

Simple, durable, but no energy return. Appropriate for low-activity K1 patients.

Single-Axis and Multi-Axis Feet

Single-Axis Foot:

  • One pivot point allowing plantarflexion/dorsiflexion
  • Bumpers control range of motion
  • Faster plantarflexion at heel strike promotes knee stability
  • Smoother transition than SACH
  • Slightly heavier, more maintenance

Multi-Axis Foot:

  • Allows movement in multiple planes
  • Plantarflexion, dorsiflexion, inversion, eversion, rotation
  • Adapts to uneven terrain
  • Better for outdoor walking, varied surfaces
  • More complex, requires maintenance
  • Suitable for K2-K3 ambulators

Multi-Axis Benefits:

  1. Terrain adaptation - accommodates slopes, uneven ground
  2. Reduced shear forces on residual limb
  3. More natural gait on varied surfaces
  4. Improved comfort outdoors

Energy-Storing and Returning (ESAR) Feet

Dynamic Response (Carbon Fiber) Feet:

  • Made of carbon fiber composites
  • Stores energy during stance (spring)
  • Returns 70-80% of energy at push-off
  • Lightweight despite high performance
  • Suitable for K3-K4 active ambulators

Categories:

  • Flex-Foot (Ossur): Original carbon fiber design
  • Carbon fiber keel feet: Various manufacturers
  • Split-toe designs: Improved terrain adaptation
  • Running-specific feet: Blade designs for sprinting

Energy Return Principle:

  • Load applied during stance compresses foot (stores energy)
  • Energy released during push-off (propulsion assist)
  • Reduces energy cost of walking by 15-25%
  • More natural, efficient gait pattern

Dynamic Response Foot Selection

Carbon fiber dynamic response feet are indicated for:

  1. K3-K4 ambulators (community, variable cadence)
  2. Patients wanting efficient gait
  3. Young, active individuals
  4. Athletes (specialized designs available)

Not appropriate for K1-K2 due to stiffness and lack of terrain adaptation.

Specialized Running Feet:

  • Blade (J-shaped) design for sprinters
  • Maximum energy return, no heel
  • Not for everyday walking
  • Paralympic competition use

Microprocessor-Controlled Feet and Ankles

Proprio Foot (Ossur):

  • Microprocessor controls ankle position
  • Detects terrain (stairs, slopes)
  • Adjusts ankle angle automatically
  • Improves toe clearance on slopes
  • Reduces compensatory hip flexion

BiOM (Ottobock):

  • Powered ankle-foot system
  • Motorized plantarflexion at push-off
  • Provides propulsive power (not just return)
  • Near-normal walking biomechanics
  • Heavy, expensive, battery dependent

Benefits of Active Ankle:

  1. Powered push-off reduces energy expenditure
  2. Stair and slope adaptation
  3. More natural gait biomechanics
  4. Reduced compensatory movements

Limitations:

  • Expensive technology
  • Battery life concerns
  • Weight and complexity
  • Limited to high-level ambulators

Upper Limb Prosthetics

Upper limb prosthetics present unique challenges compared to lower limb. The hand's complexity (27 bones, 18 degrees of freedom) cannot be replicated. Prosthetic options provide partial function or cosmesis.

Body-Powered Prosthetics

Mechanism:

  • Cable and harness system
  • Movement of opposite shoulder or trunk
  • Bowden cable transmits motion to terminal device
  • Scapular abduction, humeral flexion, or chest expansion

Components:

  • Figure-of-8 harness: Standard for transradial
  • Figure-of-9 harness: For transhumeral, adds elbow control
  • Wrist unit: Quick disconnect for terminal devices
  • Terminal device: Hook or voluntary-opening hand

Advantages:

  • Proprioceptive feedback through cable tension
  • Durable and reliable
  • Lower cost than myoelectric
  • Waterproof options available
  • Works in any environment

Disadvantages:

  • Requires body motion (harness effort)
  • Limited grip strength (typically 20-25 lbs)
  • Visible harness system
  • Can be hot and uncomfortable

Body-Powered Prosthetic Feedback

Proprioceptive feedback is a key advantage of body-powered prosthetics:

  • Cable tension provides sensory information
  • User feels how hard they are gripping
  • Important for delicate tasks
  • This is lost with myoelectric prosthetics

Many long-term users prefer body-powered for this feedback.

Myoelectric Prosthetics

Mechanism:

  • Surface EMG electrodes detect muscle contraction
  • Electronic signals amplified and processed
  • Motors control terminal device movement
  • Typically 2-site control (antagonist muscles)

Control Strategies:

  • Two-site: Flexors open, extensors close (or vice versa)
  • Co-contraction: Simultaneous contraction switches modes
  • Proportional control: Signal strength controls speed
  • Pattern recognition: Advanced multi-movement control

Advantages:

  • No harness required (self-suspended or minimal)
  • Higher grip strength (25-35 lbs typically)
  • More cosmetic appearance
  • Less body movement required

Disadvantages:

  • Expensive (often greater than 50,000 USD)
  • Requires battery charging
  • Not waterproof (most models)
  • No proprioceptive feedback
  • Requires myoelectric training
  • Higher rejection rates

Hooks vs Prosthetic Hands

Prosthetic Hooks:

  • Voluntary-opening (VO): Rubber bands close, cable opens
  • Voluntary-closing (VC): Cable closes, spring opens
  • Precise grip for small objects
  • Visual access to work area
  • Durable for work environments
  • Split hook design common

Prosthetic Hands:

  • Cosmetically superior (glove covered)
  • Tridigital grasp (thumb, index, middle)
  • Less precise than hooks
  • Gloves wear and stain
  • Preferred for social situations

Activity-Specific Devices:

  • Work hooks (heavy duty)
  • Sports terminal devices
  • Guitar/music holders
  • Recreational attachments
  • Quick-change wrist allows switching

Hook vs Hand Selection

Most experienced users prefer hooks for function:

  1. Better visibility of grip
  2. More precise control
  3. Durable for work/outdoor activities
  4. Lower maintenance costs

Hands preferred for:

  1. Social situations, cosmesis
  2. Office work
  3. Light activities
  4. Patient preference for appearance

Many users have both and switch based on activity.

Advanced Upper Limb Prosthetics

Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR):

  • Surgical procedure transfers arm nerves to chest
  • Reinnervated muscles provide control sites
  • More intuitive myoelectric control
  • Multiple independent movements possible
  • Pattern recognition combined with TMR

Osseointegration:

  • Direct skeletal attachment (no socket)
  • Titanium implant fused to bone
  • Abutment protrudes through skin
  • Improved proprioception and control
  • Eliminates socket issues
  • Risk: Infection at skin-abutment interface

Multi-Articulating Hands:

  • i-Limb (Ossur): Individual finger motors
  • bebionic (Ottobock): Multiple grip patterns
  • LUKE Arm (Mobius): Advanced shoulder-level options
  • Allow more natural grip patterns
  • Very expensive, complex

Emerging Technology:

  • Sensory feedback systems (haptic feedback)
  • Brain-computer interfaces (experimental)
  • 3D-printed custom devices
  • Soft robotics approaches

Upper Limb Prosthetic Rejection

Rejection rates are higher for upper limb than lower limb prosthetics:

  • Transradial: 20-30% rejection
  • Transhumeral: 30-50% rejection
  • Higher rejection with proximal amputation

Reasons for Rejection:

  1. Insufficient function compared to remaining abilities
  2. Discomfort with socket and harness
  3. Weight of prosthesis
  4. Appearance concerns
  5. Lack of sensory feedback
  6. Difficulty learning myoelectric control

Upper Limb Prosthetic Acceptance

Keys to successful upper limb prosthetic use:

  1. Early fitting (within 30 days if possible)
  2. Comprehensive training program
  3. Realistic expectations counseling
  4. Multiple device options for different activities
  5. Ongoing prosthetist and therapy support

Delay beyond 6 months significantly reduces acceptance rates.

K-Level Classification and Functional Outcomes

Medicare Functional Classification Levels (K-Levels)

K-Level Classification and Component Prescription

K-LevelFunctional DescriptionProsthetic ComponentsExpected Outcomes
K0Non-ambulatory, cannot use prosthesisCosmetic prosthesis only, wheelchairNo prosthetic ambulation expected
K1Household ambulator, transfersSACH foot, single-axis knee, pin suspensionLimited indoor walking, standing
K2Limited community ambulatorMulti-axis foot, polycentric kneeCommunity distances, low obstacles
K3Unlimited community ambulator, variable cadenceDynamic response foot, hydraulic knee, vacuum suspensionVariable speed, terrain adaptation
K4Active athlete, high-impact activitiesCarbon fiber foot, microprocessor knee, specialized sport componentsRunning, sports, exceeds basic ambulation

Functional Assessment Tools

Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP/AMPnoPRO):

  • Validated tool predicting prosthetic mobility potential
  • 21-item assessment (without prosthesis version available)
  • Scores correlate with K-level classification
  • Used preoperatively and during rehabilitation

Timed Up and Go (TUG):

  • Standard mobility measure
  • Rise from chair, walk 3m, return, sit
  • Greater than 19 seconds suggests falls risk

6-Minute Walk Test:

  • Endurance assessment
  • Distance correlates with community ambulation
  • Greater than 200m suggests community ambulatory potential

L-Test:

  • Modified TUG with turns
  • More challenging than TUG
  • Better predicts community mobility

K-Level Determination

K-level is determined by:

  1. Prior functional level (pre-amputation)
  2. Current physical examination
  3. Comorbidities and healing
  4. Cognitive ability
  5. Motivation and goals

K-level can change - reassess at follow-up. K2 patient may progress to K3 with training. Deteriorating health may reduce K-level.

Evidence Base and Key Studies

Microprocessor Knee Units and Falls Prevention

2
Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, et al. • Arch Phys Med Rehabil (2007)
Key Findings:
  • Prospective study of C-Leg microprocessor knee vs mechanical knee
  • 64% reduction in stumbles and falls with C-Leg
  • Improved stair descent confidence and speed
  • Reduced cognitive load during ambulation
  • Patients preferred microprocessor knee 12:1
Clinical Implication: Microprocessor knees significantly reduce falls risk. Consider for K3-K4 ambulators and any transfemoral amputee with falls history.
Limitation: Industry-sponsored, short follow-up, selected population.

Energy Cost of Ambulation with Prostheses

3
Waters RL, Perry J, Antonelli D, et al. • J Bone Joint Surg Am (1976)
Key Findings:
  • Quantified energy expenditure by amputation level
  • Transtibial: 40-60% increase above normal
  • Transfemoral: 90-120% increase above normal
  • Vascular amputees walk at self-selected comfortable speed
  • Energy efficiency improved with better prosthetic components
Clinical Implication: Knee preservation is paramount - doubles energy efficiency compared to transfemoral. Advanced components improve efficiency.
Limitation: Older study, prosthetic technology has advanced significantly.

Dynamic Response Feet Energy Return

3
Hsu MJ, Nielsen DH, Lin-Chan SJ, et al. • Prosthet Orthot Int (2006)
Key Findings:
  • Compared SACH, single-axis, and dynamic response feet
  • Energy-storing feet return 60-80% of stored energy
  • 15-25% reduction in oxygen consumption vs SACH
  • Improved gait symmetry with dynamic feet
  • Higher satisfaction scores with carbon fiber feet
Clinical Implication: Dynamic response feet significantly improve gait efficiency for active ambulators (K3-K4). Recommend for community ambulators.
Limitation: Laboratory study, selected healthy amputees.

Socket Design: Ischial Containment vs Quadrilateral

3
Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL • Prosthet Orthot Int (2008)
Key Findings:
  • Comparative study of socket designs in transfemoral amputees
  • Ischial containment provides superior femoral control
  • Improved stance stability with IC sockets
  • Better gait kinematics and reduced compensatory movements
  • Higher patient satisfaction with ischial containment
Clinical Implication: Ischial containment is the modern standard for active transfemoral amputees. Provides better control and gait efficiency.
Limitation: Retrospective design, variable prosthetist experience.

Upper Limb Prosthetic Rejection Rates

2
Biddiss EA, Chau TT • Prosthet Orthot Int (2007)
Key Findings:
  • Systematic review of upper limb prosthetic use and rejection
  • Overall rejection rates: 20-30% for body-powered, 23-35% for myoelectric
  • Higher rejection with more proximal amputation
  • Early fitting improves acceptance significantly
  • Lack of sensory feedback major reason for rejection
Clinical Implication: Early prosthetic fitting and comprehensive training are essential. Set realistic expectations. Provide multiple device options.
Limitation: Heterogeneous studies, variable definitions of rejection.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"A 45-year-old active male has undergone transtibial amputation for trauma 3 months ago. He is a construction worker who wants to return to work. What prosthetic components would you recommend for him?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a young, active patient with traumatic amputation and high functional demands. Based on his work requirements and prior activity level, I would classify him as K3 or potentially K4. For the socket, I would recommend a TSB (total surface bearing) design with gel liner for comfort and uniform pressure distribution. For suspension, I would suggest suction or vacuum suspension given his activity level - this provides intimate fit and minimizes pistoning during demanding work activities. Vacuum suspension also helps with volume management during the workday. For the prosthetic foot, I would recommend a dynamic response (energy-storing) carbon fiber foot. This returns 70-80% of stored energy, reducing the energy cost of walking and standing all day. The stiffness category would be selected based on his weight and activity level. I would also discuss work-specific considerations including boot compatibility and potentially a waterproof prosthesis if his work environment is wet. Construction work may benefit from a lower-profile foot design for boot fitting. Close follow-up with the prosthetist is essential during the return-to-work period to address any socket fit or skin issues that arise with increased activity.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
K-level assessment guides component selection - this patient is K3-K4
TSB socket with gel liner for comfort and pressure distribution
Suction or vacuum suspension for active lifestyle
Dynamic response foot for energy efficiency and active use
Consider work environment requirements (boots, waterproofing)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Under-prescribing components for active patient (SACH foot inappropriate)
✗Not considering occupation-specific requirements
✗Ignoring suspension choice importance
✗Forgetting ongoing prosthetist follow-up
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What suspension options are available for transtibial prostheses?"
"How does a dynamic response foot differ from a SACH foot?"
"What socket problems might this patient encounter returning to heavy work?"
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"A 72-year-old woman with diabetes and peripheral vascular disease has had a transfemoral amputation. She was previously mobile with a walking frame indoors only. What knee unit and foot would you recommend?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This elderly patient with vascular disease and limited pre-amputation mobility would be classified as K1-K2 at best. Her realistic functional goal is likely household ambulation with a walking aid. For the knee unit, I would recommend a polycentric (4-bar linkage) knee with weight-activated stance control. The polycentric design provides inherent geometric stability which is important for a nervous or weak ambulator. It also shortens in swing phase, improving toe clearance. A weight-activated brake prevents collapse when weight is on the prosthesis. Alternatively, a single-axis knee with manual lock could be considered if she is very unsteady, though this produces a stiff-legged gait. For the prosthetic foot, a SACH foot would be appropriate. This is simple, durable, and requires no maintenance. The compressible heel simulates ankle motion at heel strike. For her activity level, the lack of energy return is not a significant limitation - comfort and stability are priorities. For the socket, an ischial containment design is standard for transfemoral amputees. I would use a pin-lock suspension system given the simplicity for donning and doffing. Sleeve suspension could be added if needed. Key considerations include diabetic skin care, monitoring for volume fluctuation, and realistic goal-setting with the patient and family about ambulation potential.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
K1-K2 patient requires simple, stable components
Polycentric knee provides geometric stability and toe clearance
SACH foot is appropriate for low-activity patients
Ischial containment socket with simple suspension (pin-lock)
Realistic expectations counseling is essential
COMMON TRAPS
✗Over-prescribing advanced components (microprocessor knee not indicated)
✗Ignoring cognitive and physical limitations
✗Not addressing diabetic skin care concerns
✗Setting unrealistic functional expectations
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"Why is a polycentric knee more stable than a single-axis knee?"
"What socket design is used for transfemoral amputees?"
"How would you counsel this patient about functional expectations?"
VIVA SCENARIOAdvanced

EXAMINER

"A 35-year-old transfemoral amputee reports multiple falls over the past 6 months, including one resulting in a hip fracture. He is currently using a mechanical hydraulic knee. What would you recommend?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a serious safety concern. Recurrent falls in a transfemoral amputee with a hip fracture represents a significant morbidity. I would first assess the cause of falls - is it knee unit failure, socket problems, or patient factors. The key question is whether he is a candidate for a microprocessor knee. Evidence strongly supports microprocessor knees (such as C-Leg or Genium) for fall prevention. Studies show a 64% reduction in falls compared to mechanical knees. The microprocessor detects stumbles and resists sudden knee flexion, preventing collapse. It also allows safer stair descent and terrain adaptation. For this patient, if he is a K3 ambulator (community, variable cadence), I would strongly recommend transitioning to a microprocessor knee. The cost-benefit analysis favours this - the cost of hip fracture treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term disability far exceeds the prosthetic investment. I would also thoroughly evaluate his current prosthesis: socket fit (pistoning causes instability), alignment (malalignment affects stability), and suspension (poor suspension reduces control). I would check his residual limb for any issues and ensure he has had proper gait training. Additional interventions include hip strengthening exercises (weak hip abductors compromise stance stability), balance training, home hazard assessment, and consideration of a walking aid for challenging environments. Follow-up with the multidisciplinary team is essential.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Recurrent falls with hip fracture is a serious indication for intervention
Microprocessor knees reduce falls by 64% compared to mechanical
Cost-benefit favours microprocessor when falls cause significant injury
Evaluate socket fit, alignment, and suspension first
Hip strengthening and balance training as adjuncts
COMMON TRAPS
✗Failing to recommend microprocessor knee when clearly indicated
✗Not investigating other causes of falls (socket, alignment)
✗Ignoring the rehabilitation and strengthening component
✗Underestimating the morbidity and cost of falls
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"How does a microprocessor knee prevent falls?"
"What are the differences between C-Leg and Genium knee units?"
"What factors determine K-level classification?"

Australian Context

In Australia, prosthetic limb services are provided through a combination of state-funded limb services, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and private health insurance. Understanding the Australian system is important for appropriate referral and patient counseling.

State and Territory Limb Services: Each state and territory operates a prosthetic limb service providing prosthetics to eligible amputees. These services have traditionally been the primary providers, though the NDIS has changed the landscape significantly. State services typically provide assessment, fitting, and ongoing maintenance. Wait times vary by jurisdiction and complexity of prescription.

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS): The NDIS provides funding for prosthetics for eligible participants under age 65 at time of application. Prosthetics are considered assistive technology under NDIS plans. High-cost items like microprocessor knees require justification demonstrating functional benefit. NDIS funding allows greater choice of prosthetist and components, though the process can be complex and slow.

PBS Considerations: Medications for residual limb pain, phantom limb pain, and wound care are available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Gabapentin and pregabalin are PBS-listed for neuropathic pain. Amitriptyline and duloxetine are also available. Wound care products for socket-related skin issues may be available through Stoma Appliance Scheme for some patients.

Quitline (13 78 48): Smoking cessation is critical for amputation wound healing and long-term prosthetic outcomes. Referral to Quitline for free telephone coaching and support should be offered to all smoking amputees.

Prosthetic Limb Components - Exam Quick Reference

High-Yield Exam Summary

K-Level Classification

  • •K0: Non-ambulatory - cosmetic prosthesis only
  • •K1: Household ambulator - SACH foot, single-axis or manual lock knee
  • •K2: Limited community - multi-axis foot, polycentric knee
  • •K3: Unlimited community - dynamic response foot, hydraulic/microprocessor knee
  • •K4: Active athlete - specialized high-activity components

Socket Types

  • •Transtibial: PTB (patellar tendon bearing) vs TSB (total surface bearing)
  • •PTB focuses weight on patellar tendon, TSB distributes evenly
  • •Transfemoral: Quadrilateral (old) vs Ischial Containment (modern standard)
  • •Ischial containment provides better femoral control and gait
  • •All sockets should have total contact to prevent distal edema

Suspension Systems

  • •Pin lock: Simple, reliable, easy don/doff (K1-K2)
  • •Suction: Intimate fit, good for active (K2-K3)
  • •Vacuum (elevated): Best volume management, complex (K3-K4)
  • •Sleeve: Simple adjunct, can cause sweating
  • •Poor suspension causes pistoning and skin breakdown

Knee Units

  • •Single-axis: Simple, durable, no cadence response (K1-K2)
  • •Polycentric (4-bar): Inherent stability, shortens in swing (K2-K3)
  • •Hydraulic: Cadence-responsive, smooth gait (K3)
  • •Microprocessor (C-Leg/Genium): 64% fall reduction, stumble recovery (K3-K4)
  • •Match knee to K-level - dont overprescribe or underprescribe

Prosthetic Feet

  • •SACH: Simple, no moving parts, compressible heel (K1)
  • •Single-axis: Plantarflexion for knee stability (K1-K2)
  • •Multi-axis: Terrain adaptation, inversion/eversion (K2-K3)
  • •Dynamic response: Carbon fiber, 70-80% energy return (K3-K4)
  • •Microprocessor feet: Active ankle control, stair/slope adaptation (K4)

Upper Limb Prosthetics

  • •Body-powered: Cable control, proprioceptive feedback, durable
  • •Myoelectric: EMG control, higher grip, no feedback, expensive
  • •Terminal devices: Hooks (functional) vs Hands (cosmetic)
  • •Rejection rates 20-30% for transradial, higher proximal
  • •Early fitting (less than 30 days) improves acceptance

Socket Problems

  • •Volume fluctuation: Most common - sock ply adjustment needed
  • •Pistoning: Socket loose or suspension inadequate
  • •Skin breakdown: Check fit, bony prominences, hygiene
  • •All problems require prosthetist review
  • •Socket is the most critical component - fit determines success
Quick Stats
Reading Time104 min
Related Topics

Atypical Mycobacterial Infection

Fungal Osteomyelitis

Melorheostosis

Amputation Surgical Principles