The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Socket Versus Bone-Anchored Trans-Femoral Prostheses: Hip Range of Motion and Sitting Comfort
Open accessAbstract
This is the first study to report on hip range of motion (ROM) among active prosthesis users, when wearing and not wearing a trans-femoral socket prosthesis and to compare with individuals rehabilitated with an osseointegrated bone-anchored prosthesis. In addition, discomfort when sitting with the prosthesis is reported in both groups. The study group all had a non-vascular amputation and were divided into those supplied with a socket prosthesis (S group) (n = 43, mean age 51 years, 74% men) or a bone-anchored prosthesis (OI group) (n = 20, mean age 46 years, 75% men). Active hip ROM was measured with a goniometer, and self-reported problems with discomfort when sitting were recorded. The hip motion decreased in all directions when wearing the socket prosthesis compared to without it (P < 0.001 for all directions), and 37% of the subjects had less than 90 degrees of hip flexion when wearing their prosthesis. Discomfort when sitting was reported among 44% (n = 19) in the S group and was more common among individuals with less than 90 degrees of hip flexion motion (P= 0.025). In the OI group, no restriction in hip motion was measured with the prosthesis, and no subject had less than 90 degrees of flexion and 5% (n = 1) reported discomfort when sitting. This study shows that a trans-femoral prosthetic socket significantly reduces the ROM of the hip and that discomfort when sitting is common among individuals wearing such prostheses. Further, the study confirms that individuals using a bone-anchored prosthesis have no restricted hip motion with the prosthesis and report very few problems with discomfort when sitting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Bierma-Zeinstra, 1998, Comparison between two devices for measuring hip joint motions, Clin Rehabil, 12, 497, 10.1191/026921598677459668 · DOI
- Boone, 1979, Normal range of motion of joints in male subjects, J Bone Joint Surg, 61A, 756, 10.2106/00004623-197961050-00017 · DOI · Paper page
- Boone, 1978, Reliability of goniometric measurements, Phys Ther, 58, 1355, 10.1093/ptj/58.11.1355 · DOI · Paper page
- Branemark, 2001, Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review, J Rehabil Res Dev, 38, 175
- Dillingham, 2001, Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: a long-term outcome study, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 80, 563, 10.1097/00002060-200108000-00003 · DOI · Paper page
- Ekstrand, 1982, Lower extremity goniometric measurements: a study to determine their reliability, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 63, 171
- Gottschalk, 1999, Transfemoral amputation: biomechanics and surgery, Clin Orthop, 361, 15, 10.1097/00003086-199904000-00003 · doi:10.1097/00003086-199904000-00003
- Hachisuka, 1999, Subjective evaluations and objective measurements of the ischial-ramal containment prosthesis, J Uoeh, 21, 107, 10.7888/juoeh.21.107 · doi:10.7888/juoeh.21.107
- Hagberg, 2001, Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems, Prosthet Orthot Int, 25, 186, 10.1080/03093640108726601 · DOI · Paper page
- Hagberg, 2004, Questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA): initial validity and reliability of a new outcome measure, J Rehabil Res Dev, 41, 695, 10.1682/JRRD.2003.11.0167 · DOI
- Hoaglund, 1983, Evaluation of problems and needs of veteran lower-limb amputees in the San Francisco Bay area during the period 1977 – 1980, J Rehabil Res Dev, 20, 57
- Hollman, 2003, Passive hip rotation range of motion: effects of testing position and age in runners and non-runners, Physiotherapy Theory Pract, 19, 77, 10.1080/09593980307954 · doi:10.1080/09593980307954
- Jaegers, 1995, Changes in hip muscles after above-knee amputation, Clin Orthop, 319, 276
- Johnston, 1970, Hip motion measurements for selected activities of daily living, Clin Orthop, 72, 205
- Kapp, 2000, Transfemoral socket design and suspension options, Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am, 11, 569, 10.1016/S1047-9651(18)30119-0 · doi:10.1016/s1047-9651(18)30119-0
- Lea, 1995, Range-of-motion measurements, J Bone Joint Surg, 77A, 784, 10.2106/00004623-199505000-00017 · DOI
- Legro, 1999, Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses, J Rehabil Res Dev, 36, 155
- Pezzin, 2000, Rehabilitation and the long-term outcomes of persons with trauma-related amputations, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 81, 292, 10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90074-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Pezzin, 2004, Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 85, 723, 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Roaas, 1982, Normal range of motion of the hip, knee and ankle joints in male subjects, 30 – 40 years of age, Acta Orthop Scand, 53, 205, 10.3109/17453678208992202 · DOI · Paper page
- Roach, 1991, Normal hip and knee active range of motion: the relationship to age, Phys Ther, 71, 656, 10.1093/ptj/71.9.656 · DOI · Paper page
- Schuch, 1999, Current transfemoral sockets, Clin Orthop, 361, 48, 10.1097/00003086-199904000-00007 · doi:10.1097/00003086-199904000-00007
- Sullivan, 2003, Rehabilitation of the transfemoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: the United Kingdom experience, Prosthet Orthot Int, 27, 114, 10.1080/03093640308726667 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Toward higher-performance bionic limbs for wider clinical use
Farina, D., Vujaklija, I., Brånemark, R., Bull, A. M. J., Dietl, H., Graimann, B., Hargrove, L. J., Hoffmann, K.-P., Huang, H., Ingvarsson, T., et al. (2021) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-021-00732-x · Cited by 263
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hagberg, K., Häggström, E., Uden, M., & Brånemark, R.
- Venue
- Prosthetics & Orthotics International
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 153-163
- ISSN
- 0309-3646 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2109075391
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Socket Versus Bone-Anchored Trans-Femoral Prostheses: Hip Range of Motion and Sitting Comfort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03093640500238014
- The paper
- Hagberg, K., Häggström, E., Uden, M., & Brånemark, R. (2005). Socket Versus Bone-Anchored Trans-Femoral Prostheses: Hip Range of Motion and Sitting Comfort. Prosthetics & Orthotics International. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640500238014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
