###### Abstract
The exhaustive analysis discussed the benefits and drawbacks of each measurement technique, as well as their associated errors in volume change. Then, [PERSON] et al. [25] evaluated the reliability and validity of some measuring techniques discussed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] and finally provided and extracted the quantitative data on the validity and reliability of the techniques (i.e., correlation coefficients). [PERSON] et al. [25] also assessed the quality of the measurement techniques to see if the research findings could be trusted and if the present measurement techniques for residual limb volume were valid and reliable. Since the last systematic review on residual limb volume measurement techniques was published in 2011 by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4], and the 2019 publication by [PERSON] et al. [25] focused primarily on the reliability and validity of the measurement techniques, researchers believe that a new systematic review is required. Although both articles were published in 2011 and 2019, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] only conducted the studies until 2009, while [PERSON] et al. [25] only conducted research through the 2016 publication. Over the past ten years, it appears that some researchers have made advancements to the current techniques used to evaluate the residual limb volume, making them simpler, more precise, and more user-friendly, especially for clinicians to use in clinical settings. Additionally, a comprehensive study of the measurement techniques is needed since new measuring devices such as handheld 3D laser scanners were developed and are extensively utilised by researchers. The review is guided by the following central research questions: (1) What techniques are available for measuring the residual limb volume fluctuation? (2) What is the procedure for performing the techniques? This study attempts to close the knowledge gap by conducting a systematic review of previous related studies to gain a better understanding of the available techniques for measuring the residual lower limb volume. It is now clear that there is a fluctuation in the residual limb volume during the period of prosthetic usage and that there are techniques that can be used to measure this fluctuation. Healthcare professionals will benefit the most from this review's information because it will enable them to comprehend the potential applications of measuring techniques in clinical settings. Additionally, it will be useful to academics, researchers, prosthetists, and even prosthesis users who are interested in the subject. This review can potentially close the information gap among these interested parties regarding the residual lower limb volume measuring techniques, which seem to become more practical and easier to apply from year to year. Moreover, several measuring techniques have recently seen a lot of implementations in clinical studies compared to the years before 2009, as reported by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4]. From this collection of works, the interested parties will discover more about residual limb volume and design an adaptation approach that suits their own needs, capabilities, and interests in specifically regulating residual limb volume fluctuation.