Comparison of prosthetic mobility and balance in transfemoral amputees with bone-anchored prosthesis vs. socket prosthesis.
Journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
ISSN: 1746-1553
Titre abrégé: Prosthet Orthot Int
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7707720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2023
01 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
16
09
2021
accepted:
17
08
2022
medline:
13
4
2023
pubmed:
27
1
2023
entrez:
26
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The literature comparing bone-anchored prosthesis (BAP) with socket prosthesis (SP) consistently reports improvement in physical health and quality of life using primarily patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). To determine the differences in mobility and balance using performance-based outcome measures and PROMs in people with transfemoral amputations (TFAs) fitted with BAP vs. SP. Causal comparative. Two groups of people with TFAs were recruited: one using a BAP (N = 11; mean age ± standard deviation, 44 ± 14.9 years; mean residual limb length as a percentage of the intact femur, 68% ± 15.9) and another group using a SP (N = 11; mean age ± standard deviation, 49.6 ± 16.0 years; mean residual limb length as a percentage of the intact femur, 81% ± 13.9), and completed the 10-meter walk test, component timed-up-and-go, Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility™ 12-item, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale. There were no statistically significant differences between the BAP and SP groups in temporal spatial gait parameters and prosthetic mobility as measured by the 10-meter walk test and component timed-up-and-go, yet large effect sizes were found for several variables. In addition, Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale and Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility™ scores were not statistically different between the BAP and SP groups, yet a large effect sizes were found for both variables. This study found that people with TFA who use a BAP can demonstrate similar temporal spatial gait parameters and prosthetic mobility, as well as self-perceived balance confidence and prosthetic mobility as SP users. Therefore, suggesting that the osseointegration reconstruction surgical procedure provides an alternative option for a specific population with TFA who cannot wear nor have limitations with a SP. Future research with a larger sample and other performance-based outcome measures and PROMs of prosthetic mobility and balance would further determine the differences between the prosthetic options.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The literature comparing bone-anchored prosthesis (BAP) with socket prosthesis (SP) consistently reports improvement in physical health and quality of life using primarily patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To determine the differences in mobility and balance using performance-based outcome measures and PROMs in people with transfemoral amputations (TFAs) fitted with BAP vs. SP.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Causal comparative.
METHODS
METHODS
Two groups of people with TFAs were recruited: one using a BAP (N = 11; mean age ± standard deviation, 44 ± 14.9 years; mean residual limb length as a percentage of the intact femur, 68% ± 15.9) and another group using a SP (N = 11; mean age ± standard deviation, 49.6 ± 16.0 years; mean residual limb length as a percentage of the intact femur, 81% ± 13.9), and completed the 10-meter walk test, component timed-up-and-go, Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility™ 12-item, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences between the BAP and SP groups in temporal spatial gait parameters and prosthetic mobility as measured by the 10-meter walk test and component timed-up-and-go, yet large effect sizes were found for several variables. In addition, Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale and Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility™ scores were not statistically different between the BAP and SP groups, yet a large effect sizes were found for both variables.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study found that people with TFA who use a BAP can demonstrate similar temporal spatial gait parameters and prosthetic mobility, as well as self-perceived balance confidence and prosthetic mobility as SP users. Therefore, suggesting that the osseointegration reconstruction surgical procedure provides an alternative option for a specific population with TFA who cannot wear nor have limitations with a SP. Future research with a larger sample and other performance-based outcome measures and PROMs of prosthetic mobility and balance would further determine the differences between the prosthetic options.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36701197
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000189
pii: 00006479-202304000-00003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
130-136Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Références
Hagberg K, Brånemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use, and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001; 25: 186–194.
Hagberg K, Brånemark R. One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses—rehabilitation perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009; 46: 331–344.
Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ, et al. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: A long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80: 563–571.
Aschoff HH, Kennon RE, Keggi JM, et al. Transcutaneous, distal femoral, intramedullary attachment for above-the-knee prostheses: an endo-exo device. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92(suppl 2): 180–186.
Juhnke DL, Beck JP, Jeyapalina S, et al. Fifteen years of experience with integral-leg-prosthesis: cohort study of artificial limb attachment system. J Rehabil Res Dev 2015; 52: 407–420.
Al Muderis M, Lu W, Li J. Osseointegrated prosthetic limb for the treatment of lower limb amputations; experience and outcomes. Unfallchirurg 2017; 120: 306–311.
Al Muderis M, Lu W, Tetsworth K, et al. Single-stage osseointegrated reconstruction and rehabilitation of lower limb amputees: The Osseointegration Group of Australia Accelerated Protocol-2 (OGAAP-2) for a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2017; 7: 1–10.
Brånemark R, Berlin O, Hagberg K, et al. A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective study of 51 patients. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 106–113.
Sullivan J, Uden M, Robinson KP, et al. Rehabilitation of the transfemoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: the United Kingdom experience. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003; 27: 114–120.
Van de Meent H, Hopman MT, Frolke JP. Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 2174–2178.
Lundberg M, Hagberg K, Bullington J. My prosthesis as a part of me: a qualitative analysis of living with an osseointegrated prosthetic limb. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011; 35: 207–214.
Hagberg K, Brånemark R, Gunterberg B, et al. Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2-year follow-up. Prosthet Orthot Int 2008; 32: 29–41.
Frossard L, Hagberg K, Häggström E, et al. Functional outcome of transfemoral amputees fitted with an osseointegrated fixation: temporal gait characteristics. JPO J Prosthet Orthot 2010; 22: 11–20.
Hagberg K, Ghassemi Jahani S-A, Kulbacka-Ortiz K, et al. 15-Year follow-up of transfemoral amputees with bone-anchored transcutaneous prostheses: mechanical complications and patient reported outcomes. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B: 55–63.
Atallah R, van de Meent H, Verhamme L, et al. Safety, prosthesis wearing time and health-related quality of life of lower extremity bone-anchored prostheses using a press-fit titanium osseointegration implant: a prospective one-year follow-up cohort study. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0230027.
Reetz D, Atallah R, Mohamed J, et al. Safety and performance of bone-anchored prostheses in persons with transfemoral amputation: a 5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102: 1329–1335.
Hagberg K, Häggström E, Uden M, et al. Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: hip range of motion and sitting comfort. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 29: 153–163.
Reif TJ, Khabyeh-Hasbani N, Jaime KM, et al. Early experience with femoral and tibial bone-anchored osseointegration prostheses. JB JS Open Access 2021; 6: e21.00072.
Diaz Balzani L, Ciuffreda M, Vadala G, et al. Osseointegration for lower and upper-limb amputation: a systematic review of clinical outcomes and complications. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2020; 34(4 suppl 3): 315–326.
Hebert JS, Rehani M, Stiegelmar R. Osseointegration for lower-limb amputation: a systematic review of clinical outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Rev 2017; 5: e10.
Gaunaurd I, Gailey R, Hafner BJ, et al. Postural asymmetries in transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011; 35: 171–180.
Baum BS, Schnall BL, Tis JE, et al. Correlation of residual limb length and gait parameters in amputees. Injury 2008; 39: 728–733.
Tzamaloukas AH, Patron A, Malhotra D. Body mass index in amputees. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1994; 18: 355–358.
Himes JH. New equation to estimate body mass index in amputees. J Am Diet Assoc 1995; 95: 646.
Mozumdar A, Roy SK. Method for estimating body weight in persons with lower-limb amputation and its implication for their nutritional assessment. Am J Clin Nutr 2004; 80: 868–875.
Osterkamp LK. Current perspective on assessment of human body proportions of relevance to amputees. J Am Diet Assoc 1995; 95: 215–218.
Allseits E, Agrawal V, Lucarevic J, et al. A practical step length algorithm using lower limb angular velocity. J Biomech 2018; 66: 137–144.
Allseits E, Lucarevic J, Gailey R, et al. The development and concurrent validity of a real-time algorithm for temporal gait analysis using inertial measurement units. J Biomech 2017; 55: 27–33.
Gaunaurd I, Gailey R, Symsack A, et al. The utility of the DoD/VA mobile device outcomes based rehabilitation program (MDORP) for higher functioning service members and veterans with lower limb amputation. Mil Med 2020; 185(suppl 1): 480–489.
Symsack A, Gaunaurd I, Thaper A, et al. Usability assessment of the rehabilitative lower limb orthopedic accommodating device (ReLOAD) by service members and veterans with lower limb loss Mil Med 2021; 186: 379–386.
Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20-79 years: reference values and determinants. Age Ageing 1997; 26: 15–19.
Clemens SM, Gailey RS, Bennett CL, et al. The Component Timed-Up-and-Go Test: the utility and psychometric properties of using a mobile application to determine prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputations. Clin Rehabil 2017; 32: 388–397.
Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M. Psychometric properties of the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale among individuals with a lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 656–661.
Sions JM, Beisheim EH, Seth M. Selecting, administering, and interpreting outcome measures among adults with lower limb loss: an updated for clinicians. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 2020; 8: 92–109.
Sions JM, Manal TJ, Horne JR, et al. Balance-confidence is associated with community participation, perceived physical mobility, and performance-based function among individuals with unilateral amputation. Physiother Theory Pract 2020; 36: 607–614.
Pauley T, Devlin M, Madan-Sharma P. A single-blind, cross-over trial of hip abductor strength training to improve timed up & go performance in patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation. J Rehabil Med 2014; 46: 264–270.
Hafner BJ, Gaunaurd IA, Morgan SJ, et al. Construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in adults with lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98: 277–285.
Gailey R, Clemens S, Sorenson J, et al. Variables that predict basic prosthetic mobility in people with unilateral lower limb amputation. PM R 2020; 12: 130–139.
Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size or why the P value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ 2012; 4: 279–282.
Al Muderis M, Tetsworth K, Khemka A, et al. The Osseointegration Group of Australia Accelerated Protocol (OGAAP-1) for two-stage osseointegrated reconstruction of amputated limbs. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 952–960.
Leijendekkers RA, van Hinte G, Frolke JP, et al. Comparison of bone-anchored prostheses and socket prostheses for patients with a lower extremity amputation: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2017; 39: 1045–1058.
Pospiech PT, Wendlandt R, Aschoff HH, et al. Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: comparison of socket prosthesis and osseointegrated prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2021; 45: 20–25.
Fritz S, Lusardi M. White paper: “walking speed: the sixth vital sign”. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2009; 32: 2–5.
Gottschalk F. Transfemoral amputation: surgical management. In: Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH, eds. Atlas of Amputations and Limb Deficiencies: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles. 3rd ed. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2004:P533–P540.
Donker SF, Beek PJ. Interlimb coordination in prosthetic walking: effects of symmetry and walking velocity. Acta Psychol 2002; 110: 265–288.
Shawen SB, Doukas WC, Shrout JA, et al. General surgical principles for the combat casualty with limb loss. In: Pasquina PF, Cooper RA, eds. Care of the Combat Amputee. Falls Church, VA: Office of the Surgeon General; 2009:119.
Rabuffetti M, Recalcati M, Ferrarin M. Trans-femoral amputee gait: socket pelvis constraints and compensation strategies. Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 29: 183–192.
Tranberg R, Zügner R, Kärrholm J. Improvements in hip- and pelvic motion for patients with osseointegrated trans-femoral prostheses. Gait Posture 2011; 33: 165–168.
Queen RM, Orendurff M. General topics & upper limb. Chapter 6: Amputee gait: normal and abnormal. In: Krajbich JI, Pinzur MS, Potter BK, Stevens PM, eds. Atlas of Amputations and Limb Deficiencies: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles. Volume 1. 4th ed. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2016:69–70.
Gailey R, Kirk-Sanchez, Clemens S, et al. Evidence-based amputee rehabilitation: a systematic approach to the restoration of function in people with lower limb loss. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 2022; 10: 17–26.
Gailey R, Gaunaurd I, Raya M, et al. Effectiveness of an evidence based-amputee rehabilitation (EBAR) program: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2020; 100: 773–787.
Gailey RS, Gaunaurd IA, Agrawal V, et al. Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012; 49: 597–612.
Agrawal V, Gailey R, Gaunaurd I, et al. Influence of gait training and prosthetic foot category on external work symmetry during unilateral transtibial amputee gait. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013; 37: 396–403.
Almeida LV, Fukuchi CA, Sakanaka TE, et al. A low-cost easily implementable physiotherapy intervention clinically improves gait implying better adaptation to lower limb prosthesis: a randomized clinical trial. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 1–13.
Shafer ZA, Perry JL, Vanicek N. A personalized exercise programme for individuals with lower limb amputation reduces falls and improves gait biomechanics: a block randomized controlled trial. Gait Posture 2018; 63: 282–289.
Schafer ZA, Vanicek N. A block randomized controlled trial investigating changes in postural control following a personalized 12-week exercise programme for individuals with lower limb amputation. Gait Posture 2021; 84: 198–204.
Pitkin M, Frossard L. Loading effect of prosthetic feet's anthropomorphicity on transtibial osseointegrated implant. Mil Med 2021; 186(suppl 1): 681–687.
Sawers A, Kim J, Balkman G, et al. Interrater and test-retest reliability of performance-based clinical tests administered to established users of lower limb prosthesis. Phys Ther 2020; 100: 1206–1216.
Frossard L, Laux S, Geada M, et al. Load applied on osseointegrated implant by transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses fitted with state-of-the-art prosthetic components. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2021; 89: 105457.
Frossard L, Leech B, Pitkin M. Automated characterization of anthropomorphicity of prosthetic feet fitted to bone-anchored transtibial prosthesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2019; 66: 3402–3410.
Frossard L, Haggstrom E, Hagberg K, et al. Load applied on a bone-anchored transfemoral prosthesis: characterization of prosthetic components—a case study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013; 50: 619—634.