©2026 by the American Board for Certification in Orthotics, Prosthetics & Pedorthics, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this document may be produced in any form without written permission of the American Board for Certification in Orthotics, Prosthetics & Pedorthics, Inc.
May 2025
As displayed in Table 5, across all five CPA panelists, the majority of work was focused on the transtibial practice area, averaging 63% of their time. This was followed by transfemoral at 31%, while transradial, transhumeral, and symes each accounted for approximately 3% or less, respectively.
Respondents answering from the perspective of prosthetic assistants were likewise asked the percentage of time they spent performing tasks associated with each prosthetic practice area. In addition, they were asked to provide detailed percentage of time distributions for the prosthetic practice areas in which they worked.
Table 5
| Transtibial | 63% |
| Transfemoral | 31% |
| Transradial | 3.0% |
| Transhumeral | 1.0% |
| Symes | 3% |
| Total | 100% |
Note: Panelists rated the areas using the following question: Overall, what percentage of prosthetic assistant work time did you spend performing the tasks related to each practice area during the past year? Enter a whole number between 0 to 100. The total must equal 100.
The CPA panel reviewed various devices within each practice area and rated how frequently they had used each one over the past 12 months, using a scale from 0 (Never) to 4 (Daily). As shown in Table 6, the CPA devices used most frequently—on at least a weekly to daily basis (ratings of 3 or higher)—included the hybrid transtibial socket design, sleeve suspension and roll-on liners (with either locks or valves), ischial containment and sub-ischial transfemoral sockets, mechanical knee control schemes, suction with expulsion valve suspension, and the roll-on locking suspension for transfemoral devices. These results suggest that certain designs and suspension mechanisms are more consistently used in current prosthetic practice, particularly for transtibial and transfemoral applications.
Table 6
| Transtibial | 63% |
|---|---|
| Sockets | |
| Patella tendon bearing | 1.8% |
| Total surface bearing | 2.2% |
| Hybrid | 4.0% |
| Suspension Mechanisms | |
| Roll-on liner with lock | 3.6% |
| Roll-on liner with valve | 3.6% |
| Sleeve | 4.0% |
| Vacuum | 3.2% |
| Supracondylar | 2.0% |
| Transfemoral | 31% |
| Sockets | |
| Quadrilateral | 0.4% |
| Ischial containment | 3.4% |
| M.A.S. design | 0.4% |
| Sub-ischial | 3.4% |
| Control Schemes | |
| Fluid control | 1.4% |
| Microprocessor | 2.8% |
| Mechanical | 3.2% |
| Suspension Mechanisms | |
| Roll-on with locking mechanism | 4.0% |
| Vacuum-assisted | 2.4% |
| Suction with expulsion valve | 3.6% |
| Hip joint/pelvic band/waist belt | 0.6% |
| Skin fit | 1.0% |
| Transradial | 3.0% |
| Control Schemes | |
| Myoelectric | 1.2% |
| Body-powered | 1.6% |
| Passive | 0.8% |
| Suspension Mechanisms | |
| Self | 1.4% |
| Locking | 1.0% |
| Suction | 1.0% |
| Harness | 1.6% |
| Transhumeral | 1.0% |
| Control Schemes | |
| Myoelectric | 0.6% |
| Body-powered | 1.2% |
| Hybrid | 1.0% |
| Passive | 0.2% |
| Suspension Mechanisms | |
| Locking | 0.8% |
| Suction | 1.0% |
| Harness | 1.2% |
| Symes | 3.0% |
| Sockets | |
| Patella tendon bearing | 0.4% |
| End bearing | 1.6% |
| Medial opening | 1.0% |
| Posterior opening | 0.4% |
| Expandable wall | 1.2% |
| Suspension Mechanisms | |
| Sock fit | 1.4% |
| Anatomical | 1.2% |
Note: Panelists rated the devices using the following question: In the past 12 months, how often did you use each device? 0 = Never | 1 = Rarely (quarterly or less) | 2 = Occasionally (monthly) | 3 = Often (weekly) | 4 = Daily