PTOTCohortClinical rehabilitation2025

Predicting walking capacity, walking performance, and life space mobility using socket comfort in lower-limb prosthesis users.

Gordon Tao, Jayden Singh, Malena Rapaport and 2 others

PMID 40953184

WHAT IT FOUND

Socket comfort was linked to indoor walking distance and community mobility, but not to weekly step count in lower-limb prosthesis users.

Key findings

01Socket comfort predicted walking capacity, but lower-limb function contributed more: a unit increase in Socket Comfort Score predicted 6.9 more metres on the 2-Minute Walk Test, and a unit increase in Short Physical Performance Battery predicted 3.43 more metres.

02Socket comfort did not predict step count after demographic and clinical variables were considered.

03A unit increase in Socket Comfort Score predicted 4.93 more points on the Life Space Assessment.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study was a cross-sectional secondary analysis of baseline data, so it cannot show that changing socket comfort changes walking outcomes. It excluded people with a Socket Comfort Score below 6 and medical conditions preventing exercise, so it mainly represents relatively comfortable, higher-functioning prosthesis users. Most participants were male and had below-knee amputation, so the results may not apply to other lower-limb prosthesis users. Five participants had missing step count data because of equipment failure, and one participant skipped each of the balance and walking-talking tests. Step count was recorded over only one week and captures only the number of steps, not the type of walking.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that improving socket comfort will increase real-world step count. Socket comfort did not predict step count after demographic and clinical variables were considered, and the sample excluded people with low comfort scores.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →