Paper Titles
Green Synthesis and Characterization of Silver Nanoparticles Using Telfairia occidentalis Leaf Extract and Bactericide Efficiency on Epoxy Matrix Doped Composites
p.33
Polycaprolactone Mechanical Properties Evaluation for Biomedical Application
p.43
Improvement of Mechanical Properties of Synthetic and Natural Fibers Composites for Application in Orthopedic Prosthetics
p.55
The Role of Chitosan and Hydroxyapatite Synergy in Bone Regeneration: Materials Science and Biological Insight
p.69
Biomechanical Analysis of Soft Tissue Thickness in Residual Limb: Impact on Stress Distribution and Interface Pressure in Prosthetic Fitting
p.81
An Automatic PSO-Optimized Spatial-Temporal Neural Network for Blood Perfusion Analysis
p.95
Simulation-Based Parametric Optimization of Optical Ring Resonators for Potential Biomedical Biosensing Applications
p.109
Design of a Modular Simulator Prototype for Psychomotor Training in Laparoscopic Surgery with Automated Evaluation
p.119
Design of an Artificial Vision System for Exercise Monitoring in Healthy Aging
p.129

Biomechanical Analysis of Soft Tissue Thickness in Residual Limb: Impact on Stress Distribution and Interface Pressure in Prosthetic Fitting

Article Preview

Abstract:

The thickness of the residual limb’s soft tissue plays a crucial role in determining the mechanical behavior and stress distribution at the stump–prosthesis interface. Using finite element analysis (FEA), this study investigates the biomechanical effects of different soft tissue thicknesses (30 mm, 50 mm, and 70 mm) on stress distribution. A patient-specific finite element model of the residual limb was developed to simulate realistic anatomical and mechanical conditions. To replicate physiological loading, a static vertical load of 350 N was applied, and the interface between the residual limb and the prosthetic liner was modeled using appropriate contact mechanics. The results revealed that reducing the soft tissue thickness to 3 cm produced higher Von Mises stress concentrations (0.115 MPa) and contact pressure (0.0697 MPa), which may increase discomfort and the risk of tissue damage. Conversely, increasing the thickness to 70 mm reduced stress values (0.016 MPa) and contact pressure (0.0312 MPa) but led to excessive deformations (6.277 mm) that could compromise prosthetic stability. An optimal soft tissue thickness of 5 cm was identified, where Von Mises stress and contact pressure remained at moderate levels, offering a balance between stress distribution and mechanical stability. These findings provide valuable guidance for optimizing prosthetic socket design, as maintaining appropriate soft tissue thickness can enhance comfort, reduce pressure-related injuries, and improve the overall functionality of lower-limb prostheses.

You might also be interested in these eBooks
Journal of Biomimetics, Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering Vol. 71 View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Journal of Biomimetics, Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering (Volume 71)

Pages:

81-93

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/p-7bnLOs

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

February 2026

Authors:

Ismail Boudjemaa, Omar Khatir*, Abdekader Benkhettou, Abdrahmene Sahli, Bel Abbes Bachir Bouiadjra, Murat Yaylaci, Smail Benberk

Keywords:

Biomechanical Analysis, Contact Pressure, Finite Element Analysis, Prosthetic Interface, Residual Limb, Shear Stress, Soft Tissue Thickness

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

© 2026 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

References

[1] C. Huang, et al., Biomechanical assessment of residual limb stress distributions in transtibial amputees: A finite element approach, J. Biomech. 92 (2019) 45–52.

Google Scholar

[2] S. Portnoy, et al., Finite element analysis of the amputated lower limb: Implications for prosthetic design, Med. Eng. Phys. 31(6) (2009) 650–659.

Google Scholar

[3] J.E. Sanders, et al., Material properties of soft tissues in the residual limb: Clinical implications for prosthetic socket design, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 35(2) (1998) 161–171.

Google Scholar

[4] A.F. Mak, et al., Prosthetic socket interface: Biomechanical considerations, Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 29(1) (2001) 1–23.

Google Scholar

[5] M.B. Silver-Thorn, D.S. Childress, Parametric analysis using finite element modeling of the below-knee residual limb/prosthetic socket interface, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 33(3) (1996) 227–238.

Google Scholar

[6] F. Hadžikadunić, A. Mujkanović, N. Vukojević, et al., Numerical analysis of the construction integrity on the example of a prosthetic device, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 012002 (2023).

DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/1298/1/012002

Google Scholar

[7] M.S. Jamaludin, A. Hanafusa, S. Yamamoto, et al., Analysis of pressure distribution in transfemoral prosthetic socket for prefabrication evaluation via the finite element method, Bioengineering 6(4) (2019) 98.

DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering6040098

Google Scholar

[8] M.L. Sampaio de Oliveira, Finite element modelling of residual limb and transtibial prosthesis socket to predict interfacial pressure considering muscle contraction, Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa (2025).

DOI: 10.1007/s10439-025-03742-x

Google Scholar

[9] T. Dumbleton, et al., Dynamic interface pressure distributions of two transtibial prosthetic socket designs, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 46(3) (2009) 405–415.

Google Scholar

[10] G.R. Gubbala, R. Inala, Design and development of patient-specific prosthetic socket for lower limb amputation, Mater. Sci. Eng. Appl. 1(2) (2021) 32–42.

DOI: 10.21595/msea.2021.22012

Google Scholar

[11] M. Zhang, A.F.T. Mak, In vivo friction properties of human skin, Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 23(2) (1999) 135–141.

Google Scholar

[12] M.W. Legro, et al., Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 36(3) (1999) 155–163.

Google Scholar

[13] I. Boudjemaa, A. Sahli, A. Benkhettou, et al., Preliminary results on the effects of orthopedic implant stiffness fixed to the cut end of the femur on the stress at the stump–prosthetic interface, Fract. Struct. Integr. 15(57) (2021) 160–168.

DOI: 10.3221/igf-esis.57.13

Google Scholar

[14] T. Messaad, A. Baltach, M.E.S. Zagane, et al., Biomechanical analysis of prosthetic liners in transfemoral amputees using finite element modeling, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 47(2) (2025) 59.

DOI: 10.1007/s40430-024-05362-3

Google Scholar

[15] H.U. Rehman, S. Saleem, S. Javeed, et al., Development and durability of prosthetic liner for transtibial amputee, Insights – J. Health Rehabil. 3(3) (2025) 111–118.

DOI: 10.71000/wsb9nr65

Google Scholar

[16] J.A. Velez Zea, L.M. Bustamante Goez, J.A. Villarraga Ossa, Relation between residual limb length and stress distribution over stump for transfemoral amputees, Rev. EIA 23 (2015) 107–115.

Google Scholar

[17] W.C.C. Lee, M. Zhang, X. Jia, J.T.M. Cheung, Finite element modeling of the contact interface between trans-tibial residual limb and prosthetic socket, Med. Eng. Phys. 26(8) (2004) 655–662.

DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2004.04.010

Google Scholar

[18] C.C. Lin, C.H. Chang, C.L. Wu, K.C. Chung, I.C. Liao, Effects of liner stiffness for trans-tibial prosthesis: A finite element contact model, Med. Eng. Phys. 26(1) (2004) 1–9.

DOI: 10.1016/s1350-4533(03)00127-9

Google Scholar

[19] D. Lacroix, J.F. Ramírez Patino, Finite element analysis of donning procedure of a prosthetic transfemoral socket, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39(12) (2011) 2972–2983.

DOI: 10.1007/s10439-011-0389-z

Google Scholar

[20] A.S. Dickinson, J.W. Steer, P.R. Worsley, Finite element analysis of the amputated lower limb: A systematic review and recommendations, Med. Eng. Phys. 43 (2017) 1–18.

DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.02.008

Google Scholar

[21] R. Surapureddy, A. Schonning, S. Stagon, A. Kassab, Predicting pressure distribution between transfemoral prosthetic socket and residual limb using finite element analysis, Int. J. Exp. Comput. Biomech. 4(1) (2016) 32–48.

DOI: 10.1504/ijecb.2016.081746

Google Scholar

[22] J.W. Steer, P.A. Grudniewski, M. Browne, P.R. Worsley, A.J. Sobey, A.S. Dickinson, Predictive prosthetic socket design: part 2—generating person-specific candidate designs using multi-objective genetic algorithms, Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 19(4) (2020) 1347–1360.

DOI: 10.1007/s10237-019-01258-7

Google Scholar

[23] I. Boudjemaa, O. Khatir, A. Hamada, A. Benkhettou, A. Sahli, Y. Abdoune, D. Ghali, Enhanced orthopedic implant design for transfemoral amputation incorporating a honeycomb structure technology, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. (2024) 1–7.

DOI: 10.1080/15376494.2024.2394988

Google Scholar

[24] L. Zhang, M. Zhu, L. Shen, et al., Finite element analysis of the contact interface between trans-femoral stump and prosthetic socket, Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC) (2013) 1270–1273.

DOI: 10.1109/embc.2013.6609739

Google Scholar

[25] Z. Meng, D.W.-C. Wong, M. Zhang, et al., Analysis of compression/release stabilized transfemoral prosthetic socket by finite element modelling method, Med. Eng. Phys. 83 (2020) 123–129.

DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.05.007

Google Scholar

[26] J.C. Cagle, P.G. Reinhall, K.J. Allyn, et al., A finite element model to assess transtibial prosthetic sockets with elastomeric liners, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 56 (2018) 1227–1240.

DOI: 10.1007/s11517-017-1758-z

Google Scholar