{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01948051948051948, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003896103896103896, 'mean_word_length': 5.238866396761134, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Rectified and Unrectified Sockets for Transtibial Amputees

The current method for fabricating prosthetic sockets is to modify a positive mold to account for the nonhomogeneity of the residual limb to tolerate load (i.e., rectified socket). We tested unrectified sockets by retaining the shape of the residual limb, except for a distal end pad, using an alginate gel process instead of casting. This investigation compared rectified and unrectified sockets. Forty-three adults with unilateral transtibial amputations were tested after randomly wearing both rectified and unrectified sockets for at least 4 weeks. Testing included a gait analysis, energy expenditure, and the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ). Results indicated no differences between sockets for gait speed and timing, gait kinematics and kinetics, and gait energy expenditure. There were also no differences in the PEQ, and 16 subjects selected the rectified socket, 25 selected the unrectified socket, and 2 subjects selected to use both sockets as their exit socket. Results seemed to indicate that more than one paradigm exists for shaping prosthetic sockets, and this paradigm may be helpful in understanding the mechanisms of socket fit. The alginate gel fabrication method was simpler than the traditional method. The method could be helpful in other countries where prosthetic care is lacking, may be helpful with new amputees, and may be helpful in typical clinics to reduce costs and free the prosthetist to focus more time on patient needs.