Objective: To evaluate the preference of transtibial amputees for the total surface bearing (TSB) socket versus the patellar tendon bearing (PTB) socket, to examine the reasons for their preferences and to determine the clinical indications of each socket. Method: We investigated fifty five subjects who could walk with the TSB silicon liner socket and had already used the PTB socket with supracondylar suspension. The subjects responded to a questionnaire of the 19 items. Results: 67.3% (37/55) of the subjects preferred the TSB silicon liner socket over the PTB socket. More than 60% of the respondents regarded the wearing, appearance, donning & doffing, weight and noise positively. However, knee flexion, walking on an uneven surface, amount of perspiration, heating and odor were regarded negatively by more than 50% of respondents. When we compared the satisfaction scores of 37 respondents who preferred TSB socket and 18 respondents who did not, the two groups showed significant differences in the level of satisfaction for wearing appearance, walking, pistoning, donning & doffing, adaptation, perspiration, heating, odor, skin disorder, stump pain, tightening feeling, and noise (p＜0.05). Conclusion: The TSB silicon liner socket was preferred by many transtibial amputee patients. TSB silicon liner socket showed positive effects on comfort, donning & doffing and cosmesis. Also it improved prosthetic suspension as a decrease in pistoning compared to the PTB socket with supracondylar suspension. However the TSB silicon liner socket has some problems such as causing excessive perspiration, heating and odor etc. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2008; 32: 430-436)

Objective
This paper aims at investigating the fitness of available computer mouse interfaces to each level of cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) patients ranging from C4 to C7. Method: Several commercially available computer mouse interfaces were selected for performance evaluation. They were head pointer, touch screen, button mouse, big-ball mouse, and mouse pad. Usual mouse with rubber pad was also tested for the C6-C7 SCI patients. The performance of each interface was evaluated in terms of average click rate of moving target box and patient's satisfaction. Results: The results that the touch screen and the head pointer were superior to other interfaces in terms of clickrate. However, in terms of the satisfaction ratio, C4-C5 SCI patients preferred the head pointer and C6-C7 SCI patients preferred the big-ball mouse. The difference in click rate and satisfaction ratio was attributed to the convenience of the interface, i.e., the necessity and type of orthosis when using the mouse interface. Conclusion: The results showed that the patients' preference was determined mainly by the convenience. Therefore, the convenience of the interface must be fully considered in the design and selection of computer interface for the SCI patients. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2006; 30: 230-235)