» Articles » PMID: 22228614

Amputee Socks: How Does Sock Ply Relate to Sock Thickness?

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Date 2012 Jan 10
PMID 22228614
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The term 'sock ply' may be a source of confusion in prosthetics practice because there may not be a consistent relationship between sock ply and sock thickness.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to characterize how sock ply related to sock thickness for different sock materials commonly used in limb prosthetics. We also evaluated how sock thickness changed under loading conditions experienced while wearing a lower limb prosthesis compared with unstressed conditions.

Study Design: Experimental. Mechanical assessment.

Methods: Seven sock materials of varying ply and sheaths were tested using a custom instrument. Sock thickness under eight different compressive stress conditions and two different biaxial in-plane tensile strain conditions were measured.

Results: For socks woven from a single material, thickness under walking stance phase conditions averaged 0.7, 1.2 and 1.5 mm for 1, 3 and 5-ply, respectively. For socks woven from several materials, the corresponding results were 0.4, 0.7 and 0.8 mm, respectively. Sock ply did not sum, e.g. a 3-ply sock was not three times the thickness of a 1-ply sock.

Conclusions: Sock thickness and compressive stiffness are strongly dependent upon sock material, interface pressure, and in-plane biaxial strain.

Citing Articles

Transfemoral Socket Fabrication Method Using Direct Casting: Outcomes Regarding Patient Satisfaction with Device and Services.

Marable W, Smith C, Sigurjonsson B, Atlason I, Johannesson G Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2023; 3(2):34672.

PMID: 37614404 PMC: 10443499. DOI: 10.33137/cpoj.v3i2.34672.


Performance of an auto-adjusting prosthetic socket during walking with intermittent socket release.

Weathersby E, Vamos A, Larsen B, McLean J, Carter R, Allyn K J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2022; 9:20556683221093271.

PMID: 35558157 PMC: 9087223. DOI: 10.1177/20556683221093271.


Incorporating a Ferrous Polymer Target into Elastomeric Liners for Socket Fit Sensing in Prosthesis Users.

Carter R, Larsen B, McLean J, Garbini J, Sanders J Sensors (Basel). 2020; 20(19).

PMID: 33019604 PMC: 7582797. DOI: 10.3390/s20195620.


Modeling the mechanics of elevated vacuum systems in prosthetic sockets.

Youngblood R, Hafner B, Czerniecki J, Brzostowski J, Allyn K, Sanders J Med Eng Phys. 2020; 84:75-83.

PMID: 32977925 PMC: 7954222. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.019.


Characterization of Prosthetic Liner Products for People with Transtibial Amputation.

Cagle J, Hafner B, Sanders J J Prosthet Orthot. 2019; 30(4):187-199.

PMID: 30906148 PMC: 6425736. DOI: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000205.


References
1.
Zachariah S, Sanders J . Standing interface stresses as a predictor of walking interface stresses in the trans-tibial prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001; 25(1):34-40. DOI: 10.1080/03093640108726566. View

2.
Fernie G, Holliday P . Volume fluctuations in the residual limbs of lower limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982; 63(4):162-5. View

3.
Sanders J, Zachariah S, Baker A, Greve J, Clinton C . Effects of changes in cadence, prosthetic componentry, and time on interface pressures and shear stresses of three trans-tibial amputees. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2000; 15(9):684-94. DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(00)00026-7. View

4.
Vannah W, Childress D . Indentor tests and finite element modeling of bulk muscular tissue in vivo. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1996; 33(3):239-52. View

5.
Sanders J, Lam D, Dralle A, Okumura R . Interface pressures and shear stresses at thirteen socket sites on two persons with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1997; 34(1):19-43. View