Jump to content

Lower Limb Prosthetic Sockets and Suspension Systems

Original Editor - Tarina van der Stockt Top Contributors - Tarina van der Stockt, Kim Jackson, Stacy Schiurring, Jess Bell, Tony Lowe, Simisola Ajeyalemi and Vidya Acharya  

Introduction

The prosthetic socket is the primary and critical interface between the residual limb and the rest of the prosthesis, so a comfortable fit is essential to a positive rehabilitation outcome.[1][2] The socket must be efficiently fitted, provide adequate load transmission, and ensure stability and control. Socket-related problems (e.g. poor fit, poor biomechanics, and reduced control) remain a major reason people stop wearing their prosthesis.[1]

The World Health Organization's Standards for Prosthetics and Orthotics, developed jointly with the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics (ISPO) and USAID, frame socket provision within a broader people-centred service standard: fit and comfort are treated as core service-quality indicators, not just technical outcomes.[3] This is a useful lens for rehabilitation professionals, since it links the technical work of the prosthetist to the outcomes physiotherapists and occupational therapists monitor day to day.

For more information on the multidisciplinary team, shared decision-making, and the basic biomechanical principles (pressure/surface area, ground reaction force) that underpin socket design, see [Limb Prosthetic Introduction|Lower Limb Prosthetic Introduction].

The Socket Fabrication Process

Socket fabrication follows a set sequence.[4]

The process starts with measuring the residual limb and taking a negative cast. The negative cast is an impression of the limb's outer surface, usually captured in plaster bandage or by digital scan.

The negative cast is then filled with plaster to create a positive mould. The positive mould is a solid replica of the residual limb itself, essentially the reverse of the negative cast.

The model is then modified by hand, through a step called rectification, to refine its shape for optimal socket fit before any material is applied.

Next, most services fabricate a check (also known as a test or diagnostic) socket. This is typically a clear plastic socket that lets the clinician see the fit against the limb and make adjustments, often across multiple fittings, before finalising the design.

[5]

Once the fit is confirmed, the definitive socket is laminated, commonly in fibreglass, carbon fibre, or nylon, to produce the durable socket the person will use day to day.

Socket quality, more than the underlying material, is the main determinant of comfort and functional control. A person will not achieve their rehabilitation goals if socket fit is poor, whether the definitive socket is plastic, resin, or carbon. That quality ultimately comes down to the prosthetist's skill: precise measurement during casting, and careful rectification of the positive mould to distribute load where the residual limb needs it.

Other Fabrication Methods

Beyond conventional lamination, several alternative fabrication routes are in current use internationally.

Polypropylene technology, developed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), is used worldwide, particularly in resource-limited settings. It is cheaper than laminated sockets and can be comparably durable.[6]

Modular socket systems, such as the Össur Modular Socket System, can instead be fabricated directly on the residual limb. This offers a faster turnaround, potentially same-day, though at a higher cost. A 2011 cost-analysis found trade-offs between speed and material cost relative to traditionally laminated sockets.[7] This approach is currently used mainly for transtibial fitting.

[8]

At the more technologically intensive end, Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) offers a digital alternative to the traditional plaster-and-hand-rectification process. The residual limb is captured with a scanner rather than a cast and the socket shape is rectified on-screen. The finished design is then produced either by milling a positive mould in the conventional way or, increasingly, by 3D printing the socket directly. A 2024 Canadian feasibility study comparing manually- and digitally-designed transtibial sockets found no significant geometric differences and comparable comfort scores between the two approaches, supporting the viability of the digital route and paving the way for a larger controlled trial.[9] For 3D-printed sockets specifically, a 2022 systematic review of the structural testing literature found that, while 3D printing is a viable alternative to conventional lamination for load-bearing sockets, socket strength is sensitive to print parameters (e.g. incorporating carbon fibre particles or reinforcing the distal end improved performance in the studies reviewed). Therefore, this route is not yet a like-for-like replacement without attention to those design details.[10] Both CAD/CAM routes, milling and 3D printing, remain more expensive and equipment-intensive than traditional fabrication, but are gaining traction as the technology and evidence base mature.

[11]

Adjustable sockets, such as the RevoFit2, address a different problem. Rather than changing how the socket is designed or manufactured, they let the user or clinician fine-tune socket volume after fitting, via dials or straps built into the socket wall, without needing a remake. This is an increasingly popular feature that can be paired with either conventionally laminated or CAD/CAM-fabricated sockets.

[12]

Digital and AI-assisted socket design is another, more experimental step beyond CAD/CAM. Because socket design leans heavily on individual prosthetist skill and judgement, results vary from clinician to clinician, and even fitting to fitting.[13] Researchers are now testing whether AI can make socket design more consistent. A 2025 Dutch study built an algorithm to predict transtibial socket shape directly from a 3D scan of the residual limb. They then clinically compared the AI-predicted socket against a conventionally designed one. The comparison supported the feasibility of the AI-predicted approach, though the authors note further work is needed before it could be considered a reliable substitute for prosthetist judgement across the full range of limb shapes seen in practice.[14]

Pressure-Tolerant and Pressure-Sensitive Areas

The socket applies external forces across the residual limb surface. How much force is applied, where, and how it is controlled all affect mobility, function, and device acceptance. Distributing load over a larger surface area reduces peak pressure and improves comfort.

Pressure-tolerant areas are regions of the residual limb that can safely bear the compressive and shear forces the socket applies during weight-bearing, without breaking down. Most of the residual limb surface is pressure-tolerant. Pressure-sensitive areas are regions, typically over bone or over nerves, that cannot safely bear load and are at high risk of skin damage if the socket applies significant pressure there.

Good socket design works with this distinction: load is distributed as evenly as possible over pressure-tolerant areas and relieved over pressure-sensitive ones. Tolerant areas may redden under load, but this resolves once the prosthesis is removed. Sensitive areas should not become red, and any redness there warrants prosthetist review.

If you would like to learn more, listen to this podcast.

Very short transtibial (TT) residual limbs (commonly cited as shorter than approximately 20% of anatomical tibial length) are generally considered insufficient to provide adequate lever control and weight-bearing support for the prosthesis. Regardless of length, residual limb tissue and bone quality are more predictive of prosthetic success than length alone.

Please follow this link to review information on residual limb and oedema management (see step four).

Transtibial (TT) Sockets

(TT = transtibial, referring to amputation through the tibia/fibula, below the knee)

Patellar Tendon Bearing (PTB)

Socket PTB

Weight bearing occurs below the patella, at the patellar tendon, with suspension from a belt tightened around the distal thigh. Belt tension can restrict blood and lymphatic circulation, and long-term use is associated with muscle atrophy and related complications.

PTB Supracondylar (PTB-SC)

Weight bearing again at the patellar tendon, with suspension generated at the medial and lateral femoral condyles. Unlike belt-suspended PTB, this avoids circulatory/atrophy problems and is widely used as a basic design for medium and long transtibial residual limbs.


PTB Supracondylar Suprapatellar (PTB-SC-SP)

The weight bearing takes place below the patella, at the patellar tendon. The suspension is generated at the medial and lateral areas of the femoral condyles and at the suprapatellar area. This type is indicated for short residual limbs, as well as in cases of anteroposterior instability in the knee.



Indications of PTB sockets:

  • Primary/early fitting: the socket accommodates residual limb volume change over the first 12–18 months post-amputation.
  • Sensitive residual limbs: pressure relief over sensitive areas is comparatively straightforward with a PTB (rigid outer socket, soft inner liner) design.
  • Bulbous residual limbs: build-ups can be added to the inner liner to ease donning/doffing.
  • Poor hand dexterity, poor eyesight, or hemiparesis: PTB sockets are generally easier to don/doff than total surface bearing designs.

Contraindications/limitations of PTB sockets:

  • Active users may find PTB trim lines and suspension too restrictive, particularly for knee flexion.
  • Pistoning can occur (see pistoning in gait deviations).
  • Some individuals cannot tolerate the localised pressure over the patellar tendon required for effective PTB function.

Total Surface Bearing (TSB) Sockets

Silicone Suction Socket (Socket SSS)

The weight bearing takes place all over the residual limb surface. Suspension is typically via a silicone liner with a distal locking pin (engaging a mechanism within the prosthetic components) or via suction. TSB sockets "uniformly distribute weight over the entire residual limb," delivering minimal peak skin pressure,[15] and are volume-matched with total surface contact through the gait cycle.

Successful TSB fitting depends on good soft-tissue control, minimised pressure peaks, and load distribution across the maximum available surface area.[16]

Advantages and indications of TSB sockets:

  • Lower trim lines suit active users.[17][16]
  • Reduced pistoning (see pistoning in gait deviations) through total contact across the gait cycle.[18]
  • Improved proprioception via full-surface load and pressure distribution, supporting balance with eyes open or closed.[18]
  • Suspension is often more secure than a PTB belt (locking pin or suction, integrated into the socket).[18]
  • Reduced overall socket pressure may improve comfort versus localised-bearing designs.[19]
  • An AAOP-recognised clinical practice guideline notes TSB sockets can decrease fitting time and support higher activity levels, evidence which counters the traditional view that TSB is reserved only for mature (stable-volume) limbs.[20]

Disadvantages and contraindications of TSB sockets:

  • Traditionally considered less suitable for primary fitting or for people on treatments causing volume fluctuation (e.g. dialysis), due to volume change in the first 12–18 months.[21] BACPAR's guideline similarly emphasises ongoing socket fit review as residual limb volume stabilises, rather than treating socket choice as a one-off decision made at first fitting.[22]
  • Less suitable for short residual limbs (<10 cm), which need higher trim lines for knee stability.[16]
  • Risk of distal-end pain if excessive soft tissue allows the limb to "drop" into the socket, or in the presence of bony spurs.[21]
  • Knee flexion discomfort possible from liner bunching in the popliteal region.[23]
  • Increased perspiration and irritation from the silicone liner.[23]
  • Less suitable for people with visual or sensory impairment or hemiparesis, given greater don/doff complexity than PTB.[21]

Transversal view shows the differences between the internal shapes of PTB SC v SSS sockets.

Socket PTB SC Socket SSS

Transfemoral (TF) Sockets

(TF = transfemoral, referring to amputation through the femur, above the knee).

Quadrilateral Socket. Weight bearing at the ischial tuberosity via posterior-shelf ischial support; suspension by suction, sometimes supplemented with belts (e.g. Silesian, neoprene). Historically the most widely used TF design.

Transversal view Medial view Posterior view

Ischial Containment Socket. Weight bearing is distributed across the residual limb surface rather than concentrated at the ischial tuberosity. This improves comfort, prosthetic control, and user confidence. The medial wall/border contains the ischial ramus, which is the defining feature of this design, alongside precise volume determination. Suspension is by suction. This design has been progressively replacing the quadrilateral socket internationally.

Transversal view Medial view Posterior view

[24]

Suspension Systems

Suspension keeps the socket on the residual limb, preventing it from slipping during the swing phase of gait or other movement. Good suspension improves energy transfer, enhances prosthetic control, and reduces discomfort and abrasion; poor suspension makes the limb feel heavy and increases the risk of skin breakdown. Prescription should consider not only the residual limb's shape and length, but also the person's overall strength, hand dexterity, eyesight, and standing balance.[4] Suspension and socket-related decisions are made collaboratively across the multidisciplinary team.[25]

[26]

1. Cuffs, Straps and Belts

Cuffs, straps and belts are the original suspension method, still used today because of their low cost, simplicity, reliability and durability. They range from a soft strap or cuff to a rigid pelvic band. This method is also known as auxiliary suspension.[27]

  • Transtibial: a strap over the patella with PTB sockets.
  • Transfemoral: used as a primary method when other options fail or are unsuitable, or as a secondary or back-up method alongside suction. Indicated for short residual limbs, fluctuating volume, or poor hip abductor strength.
  • Disadvantages: can be hot to wear, pressure around the pelvis, requires hand dexterity and strength, can move during sitting, minimal suspension quality, risk of bruising and chafing.

2. Lanyard

A cord/strap attached to the distal liner passes through a hole in the socket base and is pulled to draw the residual limb into the socket, then secured externally. Used for transfemoral suspension.[27]

  • Advantages: easy to don seated (useful for poor eyesight/balance), secure suspension, reduces socket rotation, inexpensive and reliable.
  • Disadvantages: requires hand dexterity/strength; needs a liner.

3. Self Suspending Socket

Suspension via a shaped socket brim that grips proximal to a joint (e.g. the femoral condyles in PTB-SC design). Transtibial only; provides comparatively weak suspension.[27]

4. External Sleeve

A sleeve (neoprene, silicone, or copolymer gel) fits over the socket and extends onto the thigh, sealing air in to create suspension. Mostly used with transtibial sockets.[27]

  • Advantages: airtight seal reduces pistoning; flexible (ribbed or wave designs allow knee flexion); cosmetic; reliable and relatively inexpensive.
  • Disadvantages: designs without a ribbed or wave pattern can abrade the patella; incorrect application can irritate skin; requires hand dexterity; effectiveness degrades with wear.

[28]

5. Pin and Lock

A silicone or gel liner with a distal pin engages a locking mechanism in the socket base. It has a release mechanism to disengage. Used in both transtibial and transfemoral prosthetics.[27]

  • Advantages: positive mechanical lock with auditory feedback on engagement; relatively easy seated donning/doffing; more forgiving of volume fluctuation than suction alone.
  • Disadvantages: the pin's distal pulling action can cause elongation-related skin breakdown (mitigated in newer reinforced liners); liner wear and tear; misalignment or incorrect donning can fail to engage the lock, which may be difficult to troubleshoot for someone with reduced dexterity or eyesight.

[29]

6. Suction without a Liner

The socket uses an expulsion valve to evacuate air and create a seal directly against skin, aided by a pull sock/cord/webbing during donning. Opening the valve breaks the seal for doffing.[27]

  • Advantages: very good suspension with accurate fit; less expensive than liner-based systems.
  • Disadvantages: poor donning technique compromises suspension; requires hand strength, dexterity, and standing balance; not secure with volume fluctuation or valve failure; considered an older suspension approach.

7. Suction with a Liner

A silicone or gel liner, sealed against the socket by silicone rings/ribs or a membrane, replaces skin as the suction interface. Air escapes through a valve as the limb is inserted, and a lubricant or alcohol solution eases the liner on. An external sleeve is usually unnecessary unless volume fluctuation is significant.[4][27]

  • Advantages: even pressure distribution; secure fit; seated donning possible; can stabilise excess residual tissue; tolerates small volume fluctuations; donning/liner fit is somewhat forgiving of precision (though this can permit socket rotation).
  • Disadvantages: relatively expensive; liner wear and tear; poor suspension with significant volume change; requires hand strength/dexterity; needs lubricant.

8. Vacuum-Assisted Suspension

Also called negative pressure, elevated vacuum, or dynamic vacuum suspension. A mechanism/pump actively removes air between the liner and socket wall, creating uniform negative pressure. An external sleeve or seal closes the system at the proximal socket.[27]

The evidence base here has grown substantially in recent years. A Canadian health-technology review found elevated-vacuum systems associated with reduced pistoning and improved residual-limb fluid volume management compared with pin-suspension systems, though one included study also found lower daily step counts (activity levels) with vacuum versus pin suspension.[30][31][32]

  • Advantages: constant negative pressure supports suspension through volume fluctuation; reduced pistoning and rotation.
  • Disadvantages: more expensive; additional mechanical components that can fail; adds weight.

9. Osseointegration

Suitable for some people with short transfemoral residual limbs. An implant is placed within the remaining femur. Once osseointegrated, the prosthesis attaches directly to the implant, removing the need for a socket or liner.[27][33]

  • Advantages: more physiological weight-bearing and less restriction than a socket; easier donning/doffing; osseoperceptive sensory feedback supporting more precise prosthetic control.
  • Disadvantages: surgical cost and risk (including infection, delayed wound healing, or fluid leakage at the implant site); intensive rehabilitation requirements.

Weight-bearing protocol varies by implant system. Some two-stage press-fit systems restrict weight-bearing for extended periods (historically cited as up to 6 months), while newer single-stage or screw-type systems may use different, often shorter, protocols.

This website is a great resource to see the different types of suspensions available, as well as a list of manufacturers and the names of the components in each category.

Watch this video if you would like more information on different types of liners.

[34]

Residual Limb Socks

Residual limb socks (commonly known as stump socks, particularly in everyday clinical and patient use) are worn over the residual limb or liner to accommodate volume change, reducing movement within the socket, peak pressure points, and chafing. They are available in varying thicknesses and materials, including wool, cotton, nylon, or gel-impregnated socks.

[35]


Donning and Doffing of Liners and Sockets

Donning refers to putting on a prosthetic device; doffing to removing it. Technique varies by device type, and clinicians should become familiar with the specific prostheses they support.

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Paternò L, Ibrahimi M, Gruppioni E, Menciassi A, Ricotti L. Sockets for limb prostheses: a review of existing technologies and open challenges. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2018 Jan 23;65(9):1996-2010.
  2. ↑ Fergason J and Smith D.G (1999) Socket Considerations for the Patient With a Trans-Tibial Amputation Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 361 pages76-84
  3. ↑ World Health Organization. WHO Standards for Prosthetics and Orthotics. Geneva: WHO; 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241512480 (accessed 05/August/2026).
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Engstrom B, Van de Ven C, editors. Therapy for amputees. Elsevier Health Sciences; 1999
  5. ↑ YouTube. AmputeeOT: How a test prosthetic socket is made. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKib_5eDYUo [last accessed 05/August/2026]
  6. ↑ International Committee of the Red Cross. Polypropylene technology. Available from: https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0913.pdf (accessed 05/August/2026).
  7. ↑ Normann E, Olsson A, Brodtkorb TH. Modular socket system versus traditionally laminated socket: a cost analysis. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2011 Mar 1;35(1):76-80.
  8. ↑ YouTube. Össur icecast® modular socket system (MSS). Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4AoNHw0JY [last accessed 05/August/2026]
  9. ↑ Eshraghi A, Phillips C, MacKay C, Dilkas S, Riondato Z, Lehkyj S, Heim W. Comparison of socket geometry, socket comfort, and patient experience between manually-and digitally-designed prosthetic sockets for lower-limb amputees: a feasibility study. Prosthesis. 2024 Jun 14;6(3):672-82.
  10. ↑ Kim S, Yalla S, Shetty S, Rosenblatt NJ. 3D printed transtibial prosthetic sockets: A systematic review. Plos one. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275161.
  11. ↑ YouTube. CAD/CAM Process - International Prosthetics and Orthotics. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U26Nb60hsVo [last accessed 05/August/2026]
  12. ↑ YouTube. RevoFit Patient Benefits. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QOY1EbVhA4 [last accessed 05/August/2026]
  13. ↑ Dickinson AS, Steer JW, Rossides C, Diment LE, Mbithi FM, Bramley JL, et al. Insights into the spectrum of transtibial prosthetic socket design from expert clinicians and their digital records. Front Rehabil Sci. 2024 Jul 12;5:1354069.
  14. ↑ van der Stelt M, Berends B, Papenburg M, Langenhuyzen T, Maal T, Brouwers L, de Jong G, Leijendekkers R. Evaluating the effectiveness of transtibial prosthetic socket shape design using artificial intelligence: a clinical comparison with traditional plaster cast socket designs. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2025 Feb 1;106(2):239-46.
  15. ↑ Muller M, Staats T.B, Leach M and Fothergill I , Total Surface Bearing Trans-Tibial Socket Design Impression Techniques
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Söderberg B (2002) Technical Note: A New Trimline Concept for Trans-Tibial Amputation Prosthetic Sockets Prosthetics and Orthotics International 26 159-162
  17. ↑ Kahle J.T (1999) Conventional and Hydrostatic Transtibial Interface Comparison Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 11(4) 85-91
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Yiğiter K, Şener G and Bayar K (2002) Comparison of the Effects of Patellar Tendon Bearing and Total Surface Bearing Sockets on Prosthetic Fitting and Rehabilitation Prosthetics and Orthotics International 26 206-212
  19. ↑ Moo E.K, Osman N.A.A, Pingguan-Murphy B, Wan Abas W.A.B, Spence W.D and Solomonidis S.E (2009) Interface Pressure Profile Analysis for Patella Tendon Bearing Socket and Hydrostatic Socket Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics 11(4) 37 – 43
  20. ↑ Stevens PM, DePalma RR, Wurdeman SR. Transtibial socket design, interface, and suspension: a clinical practice guideline. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 2019 Jul 1;31(3):172-8.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Hachisuka K, Dozono K, Ogata H, Ohmine S, Shitama H, Shinkoda K (1998) Total Surface Bearing Below – Knee Prosthesis: Advantages, Disadvantages and Clinical Implications Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 79 783-789
  22. ↑ British Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Amputee Rehabilitation. Evidence based clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy management of adults with lower limb prostheses. 2020, 3rd Edition.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Sewell P, Noroozi S, Vinney J and Andrews S (2000) Developments in the Trans-Tibial Prosthetic Socket Fitting Process: A Review of Past and Present Research Prosthetics and Orthotics International 24 97-107
  24. ↑ Cornerstone Prosthetics and Orthotics. What Are Your Above Knee Amputee Options? Available from: https://youtu.be/nRzIWANwey0
  25. ↑ Broomhead P, Clark K, Dawes D, Hale C, Lambert A, Quinlivan D, Randell T, Shepherd R, Withpetersen J. Evidence based clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy management of adults with lower limb prostheses. London, UK: British Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Amputation Rehabilitation; 2003 Feb.
  26. ↑ Bulow Orthotic and Prosthetic Solutions. Prosthesis Suspension Types Available from: https://youtu.be/uLlXvr4pzvI
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 27.8 NZALS Peke Waihanga, Aotearoa. Suspension Systems. https://www.nzals.co.nz/products/categories/suspension-systems
  28. ↑ Ottobock. How to put on a below knee prosthesis with one-way valve and knee sleeve?Available from:https://youtu.be/hwUF_DPXLPA
  29. ↑ Ottobock. How to put on an above knee prosthesis with Pin Liner (Shuttle Lock System)? Available from: https://youtu.be/nRC47UhXO0U
  30. ↑ Young C, Loshak H. Elevated vacuum suspension systems for adults with amputation: A review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines.
  31. ↑ Baumann M, Price C, Brousseau L, Loftsgaarden M, Powell J, Sanders J, Childers WL. The relationship between residual limb health, motion within the socket, and prosthetic suspension. PM&R. 2023 Apr;15(4):510-21.
  32. ↑ Youngblood RT, Brzostowski JT, Hafner BJ, Czerniecki JM, Allyn KJ, Foster RL, Sanders JE. Effectiveness of elevated vacuum and suction prosthetic suspension systems in managing daily residual limb fluid volume change in people with transtibial amputation. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2020 Jun;44(3):155-63.
  33. ↑ Li Y, Brånemark R. Osseointegrated prostheses for rehabilitation following amputation. Der Unfallchirurg. 2017 Apr 1;120(4):285-92.
  34. ↑ AmputeeOT: Liner Primer! All about liners for prosthetic legs Available from: https://youtu.be/ySP7PXUloXE
  35. ↑ AmputeeOT: All about stump socks for below knee amputees. Available from: https://youtu.be/e22I_sG8q1A
  36. ↑ Saskatchewan Health Authority - Regina and Area. Donning and Doffing of Gel Liners. July 2014. Available from: https://youtu.be/-15YzvJduQI [last accessed 08/01/2020]
  37. ↑ Bulow Orthotic and Prosthetic Solutions. How to Don and Doff your Prosthesis. Available from: https://youtu.be/ncktp4NaZWk [last accessed 08/01/2020]
  38. ↑ alexschwarz76. Amputee putting on above knee prosthesis. March 2013. Available from: https://youtu.be/-5CobQYRNbY [last accessed 08/01/2020]
  39. ↑ AmputeeCoalition. AmputeeOT: How to take off and put on an Above Knee Prosthetic Leg. July 2014 Available from: https://youtu.be/pq890DFQh5Y [last accessed 08/01/2020]
  40. ↑ Renee Shadley. Revofit Adjustable Socket : Overview video for BKA amputee after amputatin. Jan 2017. Available from: https://youtu.be/_z0b-lkw8yw [last accessed 08/01/2020]
  41. ↑ SCProsthetics. Amputee dons Stan Patterson NPS Elevated Vacuum Above Knee Socket Tutorial. April 2010. Available from: https://youtu.be/r69ROFbPqaM [last accessed 08/01/2020]
Retrieved from "https://www.physio-pedia.com/w/index.php?title=Lower_Limb_Prosthetic_Sockets_and_Suspension_Systems&oldid=382978"