Establishing K-levels and prescribing transtibial prostheses using six-minute walk test and one-leg standing test on prosthesis: a retrospective audit.
Journal
International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation
ISSN: 1473-5660
Titre abrégé: Int J Rehabil Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7805421
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
29
1
2020
medline:
13
8
2020
entrez:
29
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rehabilitation programs after amputation often include fitting a prosthesis, but prescriptions vary under similar circumstances. The US Medicare Functional Classification Level (K-level) is a scale for describing functional abilities of persons after lower-limb amputation (from 0 = no ability or potential to ambulate, to 4 = prosthetic demands of a child/active adult/athlete). Different outcome measures are used to assess K-level, including six-minute walk test (6MWT). We attempted to predict the assigned K-level of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users from their results of 6MWT and one-leg standing test on prosthesis (OLSTP). Outpatients who had been rehabilitated and fitted with transtibial prosthesis at the University Rehabilitation Institute in Ljubljana in 2014 were included in a retrospective audit. The data were analysed using receiver-operating-characteristics curves, linear discriminant analysis, classification trees and ordinal logistic regression. Among the 120 patients (aged 39-90, mean 67 years; 79% men), eight belonged to K1 level, 94 to K2, and 18 to K3 or K4; 61 could not stand on the prosthesis, eight stood on it for 1 s, and 51 stood on it for 2 s or more. With a simple classification rule based only on 6MWT (130 m threshold for K2/K3/K4 vs. K1, 340 m for K3/K4 vs. K1/K2), we observed sensitivity and specificity close to 90%. The more sophisticated statistical approaches yielded substantially similar and comparably accurate results. 6MWT and OLST could therefore be used as predictors for transtibial prosthesis prescription in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31990750
doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000394
pii: 00004356-202009000-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
266-271Références
Batten HR, McPhail SM, Mandrusiak AM, Varghese PN, Kuys SS. Gait speed as an indicator of prosthetic walking potential following lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019; 43:196–203
Borrenpohl D, Kaluf B, Major MJ. Survey of U.S. Practitioners on the validity of the medicare functional classification level system and utility of clinical outcome measures for aiding K-level assignment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 97:1053–1063
Curtze C, Hof AL, Postema K, Otten B. Staying in dynamic balance on a prosthetic limb: a leg to stand on? Med Eng Phys. 2016; 38:576–580
De-Rosende Celeiro I, Simón Sanjuán L, Santos-Del-Riego S. Activities of daily living in people with lower limb amputation: outcomes of an intervention to reduce dependence in pre-prosthetic phase. Disabil Rehabil. 2017; 39:1799–1806
Dillon MP, Major MJ, Kaluf B, Balasanov Y, Fatone S. Predict the medicare functional classification level (K-level) using the amputee mobility predictor in people with unilateral transfemoral and transtibial amputation: A pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42:191–197
Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Cho B, Cunniffe B, Licht S, et al. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee’s ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83:613–627
Health Care Finance Administration; Common Procedure Coding System HCPCS 2001. 2001, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office
Hermodsson Y, Ekdahl C, Persson BM, Roxendal G. Standing balance in trans-tibial amputees following vascular disease or trauma: a comparative study with healthy subjects. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994; 18:150–158
Klenow TD, Mengelkoch LJ, Stevens PM, Ràbago CA, Hill OT, Latlief GA, et al. The role of exercise testing in predicting successful ambulation with a lower extremity prosthesis: a systematic literature review and clinical practice guideline. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018; 15:64
Lopez MN, Charter RA, Mostafavi B, Nibut LP, Smith WE. Psychometric properties of the folstein mini-mental state examination. Assessment. 2005; 12:137–144
McCullagh P. Regression models for ordinal data. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1980; 42:109–142
O’Connell A. Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variables. 2006, Thousand Oaks: Sage
O’Keeffe B, Rout S. Prosthetic rehabilitation in the lower limb. Indian J Plast Surg. 2019; 52:134–143
Orendurff MS, Raschke SU, Winder L, Moe D, Boone DA, Kobayashi T. Functional level assessment of individuals with transtibial limb loss: Evaluation in the clinical setting versus objective community ambulatory activity. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2016; 3:205566831663631
Reid L, Thomson P, Besemann M, Dudek N. Going places: does the two-minute walk test predict the six-minute walk test in lower extremity amputees? J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47:256–261
Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther. 2011; 91:555–565
Rouhani A, Mohajerzadeh S. An epidemiological and etiological report on lower extremity amputation in northwest of iran. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013; 1:103–106
Saglam Y, Gulenc B, Birisik F, Ersen A, Yilmaz Yalcinkaya E, Yazicioglu O. The quality of life analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control in trans-femoral amputees. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017; 51:466–469
Simmelink EK, Rommers GM, Gardeniers JW, Zijlstra H. Prosthetic fitting in a patient with a transtibial amputation due to a congenital vascular malformation of the right leg. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014; 38:167–170
Sions JM, Beisheim EH, Manal TJ, Smith SC, Horne JR, Sarlo FB. Differences in physical performance measures among patients with unilateral lower-limb amputations classified as functional level K3 versus K4. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 99:1333–1341
Stern JR, Wong CK, Yerovinkina M, Spindler SJ, See AS, Panjaki S, et al. A meta-analysis of long-term mortality and associated risk factors following lower extremity amputation. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017; 42:322–327
Stevens P, Fross N, Kapp S. Clinically relevant outcome measures in orthotics and prosthetics. Acad Today. 2009; 5:A4–A11
Sturk JA, Lemaire ED, Sinitski E, Dudek NL, Besemann M, Hebert JS, Baddour N. Gait differences between K3 and K4 persons with transfemoral amputation across level and non-level walking conditions. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42:626–635
Wright & Filippis; Gait deviations and prosthetic knee and feet systems. 2007. https://slideplayer.com/slide/4188480/. [Accessed 10 December 2019]