Contents

©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.

Practice Analysis of ABC Certified Assistants in the Disciplines of Orthotics and Prosthetics

May 2025

Download

Results Related to Prosthetic Practice Areas, Devices and Activities

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. 

Prosthetic Practice Areas and Devices

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

Percentage of Work Time Spent by CPAs in Each Practice Area
Transtibial63%
Transfemoral31%
Transradial3.0%
Transhumeral1.0%
Symes3%
Total100%

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

Frequency of Device Use by CPAs Across Practice Areas
Transtibial63%
Sockets 
Patella tendon bearing1.8%
Total surface bearing 2.2%
Hybrid4.0%
Suspension Mechanisms 
Roll-on liner with lock3.6%
Roll-on liner with valve3.6%
Sleeve4.0%
Vacuum3.2%
Supracondylar2.0%
Transfemoral31%
Sockets 
Quadrilateral0.4%
Ischial containment3.4%
M.A.S. design0.4%
Sub-ischial3.4%
Control Schemes 
Fluid control1.4%
Microprocessor2.8%
Mechanical3.2%
Suspension Mechanisms 
Roll-on with locking mechanism4.0%
Vacuum-assisted2.4%
Suction with expulsion valve3.6%
Hip joint/pelvic band/waist belt0.6%
Skin fit1.0%
Transradial3.0%
Control Schemes 
Myoelectric1.2%
Body-powered1.6%
Passive0.8%
Suspension Mechanisms 
Self1.4%
Locking1.0%
Suction1.0%
Harness1.6%
Transhumeral1.0%
Control Schemes 
Myoelectric0.6%
Body-powered1.2%
Hybrid 
1.0%
Passive0.2%
Suspension Mechanisms 
Locking0.8%
Suction1.0%
Harness1.2%
Symes3.0%
Sockets 
Patella tendon bearing0.4%
End bearing1.6%
Medial opening1.0%
Posterior opening0.4%
Expandable wall1.2%
Suspension Mechanisms 
Sock fit1.4%
Anatomical1.2%
  

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