Survey of transfemoral amputee experience and priorities for the user-centered design of powered robotic transfemoral prostheses.


Journal

Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 12 2021
Historique:
received: 31 08 2020
accepted: 05 10 2021
entrez: 5 12 2021
pubmed: 6 12 2021
medline: 22 3 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Transfemoral amputees experience a complex host of physical, psychological, and social challenges, compounded by the functional limitations of current transfemoral prostheses. However, the specific relationships between human factors and prosthesis design and performance characteristics have not yet been adequately investigated. The present study aims to address this knowledge gap. A comprehensive single-cohort survey of 114 unilateral transfemoral amputees addressed a broad range of demographic and clinical characteristics, functional autonomy, satisfaction and attitudes towards their current prostheses, and design priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis, including the possibility of active assistance from a robotic knee unit. The survey was custom-developed based on several standard questionnaires used to assess motor abilities and autonomy in activities of daily living, prosthesis satisfaction, and quality of life in lower-limb amputees. Survey data were analyzed to compare the experience (including autonomy and satisfaction) and design priorities of users of transfemoral prostheses with versus without microprocessor-controlled knee units (MPKs and NMPKs, respectively), with a subsequent analyses of cross-category correlation, principal component analysis (PCA), cost-sensitivity segmentation, and unsupervised K-means clustering applied within the most cost-sensitive participants, to identify functional groupings of users with respect to their design priorities. The cohort featured predominantly younger (< 50 years) traumatic male amputees with respect to the general transfemoral amputee population, with pronounced differences in age distribution and amputation etiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic) between MPK and NMPK groups. These differences were further reflected in user experience, with MPK users reporting significantly greater overall functional autonomy, satisfaction, and sense of prosthesis ownership than those with NMPKs, in conjunction with a decreased incidence of instability and falls. Across all participants, the leading functional priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis were overall stability, adaptability to variable walking velocity, and lifestyle-related functionality, while the highest-prioritized general characteristics were reliability, comfort, and weight, with highly variable prioritization of cost according to reimbursement status. PCA and user clustering analyses revealed the possibility for functionally relevant groupings of prosthesis features and users, based on their differential prioritization of these features-with implications towards prosthesis design tradeoffs. This study's findings support the understanding that when appropriately prescribed according to patient characteristics and needs in the context of a proactive rehabilitation program, advanced transfemoral prostheses promote patient mobility, autonomy, and overall health. Survey data indicate overall stability, modularity, and versatility as key design priorities for the continued development of transfemoral prosthesis technology. Finally, observed associations between prosthesis type, user experience, and attitudes concerning prosthesis ownership suggest both that prosthesis characteristics influence device acceptance and functional outcomes, and that psychosocial factors should be specifically and proactively addressed during the rehabilitation process.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Transfemoral amputees experience a complex host of physical, psychological, and social challenges, compounded by the functional limitations of current transfemoral prostheses. However, the specific relationships between human factors and prosthesis design and performance characteristics have not yet been adequately investigated. The present study aims to address this knowledge gap.
METHODS
A comprehensive single-cohort survey of 114 unilateral transfemoral amputees addressed a broad range of demographic and clinical characteristics, functional autonomy, satisfaction and attitudes towards their current prostheses, and design priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis, including the possibility of active assistance from a robotic knee unit. The survey was custom-developed based on several standard questionnaires used to assess motor abilities and autonomy in activities of daily living, prosthesis satisfaction, and quality of life in lower-limb amputees. Survey data were analyzed to compare the experience (including autonomy and satisfaction) and design priorities of users of transfemoral prostheses with versus without microprocessor-controlled knee units (MPKs and NMPKs, respectively), with a subsequent analyses of cross-category correlation, principal component analysis (PCA), cost-sensitivity segmentation, and unsupervised K-means clustering applied within the most cost-sensitive participants, to identify functional groupings of users with respect to their design priorities.
RESULTS
The cohort featured predominantly younger (< 50 years) traumatic male amputees with respect to the general transfemoral amputee population, with pronounced differences in age distribution and amputation etiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic) between MPK and NMPK groups. These differences were further reflected in user experience, with MPK users reporting significantly greater overall functional autonomy, satisfaction, and sense of prosthesis ownership than those with NMPKs, in conjunction with a decreased incidence of instability and falls. Across all participants, the leading functional priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis were overall stability, adaptability to variable walking velocity, and lifestyle-related functionality, while the highest-prioritized general characteristics were reliability, comfort, and weight, with highly variable prioritization of cost according to reimbursement status. PCA and user clustering analyses revealed the possibility for functionally relevant groupings of prosthesis features and users, based on their differential prioritization of these features-with implications towards prosthesis design tradeoffs.
CONCLUSIONS
This study's findings support the understanding that when appropriately prescribed according to patient characteristics and needs in the context of a proactive rehabilitation program, advanced transfemoral prostheses promote patient mobility, autonomy, and overall health. Survey data indicate overall stability, modularity, and versatility as key design priorities for the continued development of transfemoral prosthesis technology. Finally, observed associations between prosthesis type, user experience, and attitudes concerning prosthesis ownership suggest both that prosthesis characteristics influence device acceptance and functional outcomes, and that psychosocial factors should be specifically and proactively addressed during the rehabilitation process.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34863213
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00944-x
pii: 10.1186/s12984-021-00944-x
pmc: PMC8643009
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

168

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007 Nov;2(6):346-57
pubmed: 19263565
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004 Jul;41(4):555-70
pubmed: 15558384
PM R. 2017 Feb;9(2):170-180.e1
pubmed: 27485674
Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(23):1990-7
pubmed: 24533877
Technol Innov. 2016 Sep;18(2-3):167-173
pubmed: 28066525
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(1):1-14
pubmed: 18566922
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Sep;97(39):e12296
pubmed: 30278503
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2019;21(3):135-142
pubmed: 31798017
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Aug;79(8):931-8
pubmed: 9710165
Gait Posture. 2014 Feb;39(2):672-82
pubmed: 24331296
Gait Posture. 2007 Oct;26(4):489-93
pubmed: 17869114
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995 Jun;27(2):77-81
pubmed: 7569824
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Sep;61(5):278-285
pubmed: 29753888
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010 Dec;34(4):399-410
pubmed: 20450461
Appl Ergon. 2012 May;43(3):473-8
pubmed: 21843878
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;88(2):207-17
pubmed: 17270519
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004 Sep;41(5):695-706
pubmed: 15558399
Front Neurosci. 2016 May 12;10:209
pubmed: 27242413
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010 Dec;34(4):362-77
pubmed: 20969495
Biomed Eng Online. 2016 Dec 19;15(Suppl 3):140
pubmed: 28105948
Neural Comput. 2013 Feb;25(2):328-73
pubmed: 23148415
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Aug 25;18(1):128
pubmed: 34433472
South Med J. 2002 Aug;95(8):875-83
pubmed: 12190225
Gait Posture. 2018 Jun;63:282-289
pubmed: 29804023
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Nov-Dec;43(7):857-70
pubmed: 17436172
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Jul;84(7):506-13
pubmed: 15973087
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011 Jun;35(2):171-80
pubmed: 21697199
Disabil Health J. 2014 Oct;7(4):442-7
pubmed: 25224984
Nat Biomed Eng. 2021 May 31;:
pubmed: 34059810
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Jul;97(7):1053-63
pubmed: 27016261
Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(15-16):1314-23
pubmed: 21050130
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014 Dec;38(6):467-73
pubmed: 24327666
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019 Apr;14(3):226-235
pubmed: 29276850
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:7241-4
pubmed: 24111416
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018 Oct;58:116-122
pubmed: 30077128
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Feb;141(1):2-18
pubmed: 21823805
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 May;26(5):546-50
pubmed: 21203857
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003 Dec;27(3):191-206
pubmed: 14727700
Nat Biomed Eng. 2020 Oct;4(10):941-953
pubmed: 33020601
Clin Rehabil. 2000 Oct;14(5):518-22
pubmed: 11043877
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 7;279(1728):457-64
pubmed: 21752817
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017 Dec;41(6):571-578
pubmed: 28190376
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Nov;94(11):2174-8
pubmed: 23774380
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999 Jul;36(3):155-63
pubmed: 10659798

Auteurs

Chiara Fanciullacci (C)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.

Zach McKinney (Z)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy. z.mckinney@ieee.org.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy. z.mckinney@ieee.org.

Vito Monaco (V)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.
Institute of Recovery and Care of Scientific Character (IRCCS), Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Florence, Florence, Firenze, Italy.

Giovanni Milandri (G)

Rehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), via Morego, 30, 16163, Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

Angelo Davalli (A)

Centro Protesi INAIL - REPAIR Lab, Via Rabuina, 14, 40054, Vigorso di Budrio, Bologna, Italy.

Rinaldo Sacchetti (R)

Centro Protesi INAIL - REPAIR Lab, Via Rabuina, 14, 40054, Vigorso di Budrio, Bologna, Italy.

Matteo Laffranchi (M)

Rehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), via Morego, 30, 16163, Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

Lorenzo De Michieli (L)

Rehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), via Morego, 30, 16163, Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

Andrea Baldoni (A)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.

Alberto Mazzoni (A)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.

Linda Paternò (L)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.

Elisa Rosini (E)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.

Luigi Reale (L)

Healthcare Area, Fondazione ISTUD, Via Paolo Lomazzo, 19, 20154, Milano, Milan, Italy.

Fabio Trecate (F)

Dept. of Physical Medicine and Functional Re-Education, Istituto Palazzolo, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Via Don Luigi Palazzolo, 21, 20149, Milano, Milan, Italy.

Simona Crea (S)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.
Institute of Recovery and Care of Scientific Character (IRCCS), Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Florence, Florence, Firenze, Italy.

Nicola Vitiello (N)

The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Dept. of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.
Institute of Recovery and Care of Scientific Character (IRCCS), Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Florence, Florence, Firenze, Italy.

Emanuele Gruppioni (E)

Centro Protesi INAIL - REPAIR Lab, Via Rabuina, 14, 40054, Vigorso di Budrio, Bologna, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH