Comparison of conventional socket attachment and bone-anchored prosthesis for persons living with transfemoral amputation - mobility and quality of life.
Bone-anchored prosthesis
Gait analysis
Osseointegrated implant
Socket-suspended prosthesis
Transcutaneous Osseointegrated prosthesis system
Transfemoral amputation
Journal
Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
ISSN: 1879-1271
Titre abrégé: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611877
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
received:
10
11
2022
revised:
29
03
2023
accepted:
12
04
2023
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
20
4
2023
entrez:
19
04
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
For patients with transfemoral amputation experiencing issues with their sockets, bone-anchored prosthesis systems are an alternative and sometimes the only way to be mobile and independent. The present cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the gait performance and quality of life of a group of patients treated with bone-anchored systems compared to those of participants treated with a conventional socket-suspended prosthesis. A total of 17 participants with a socket-suspended and 20 with a bone-anchored prosthesis were included. Gait patterns were examined for symmetry, and performance was assessed using the six-minute walk test and the timed "Up & Go" test. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to detect signs of osteoarthritis in both hips. Mobility in everyday life and quality of life were assessed using questionnaires. There were no differences between the groups regarding the quality of life, daily mobility, and gait performance. The step width was significantly higher for the patients using socket-suspended prosthesis. The socket-suspended group showed a significant asymmetry regarding the step length. In the socket-suspended group, the prosthetic leg showed significantly higher cartilage abrasion than the contralateral leg did. Large differences in the measured outcomes in both groups illustrate the very different capabilities of the individual participants, which is apparently not primarily determined by the type of treatment. For patients who are satisfied with the socket treatment and perform well, bone-anchored prosthesis systems may not necessarily improve their functional capabilities and perceived quality of life.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
For patients with transfemoral amputation experiencing issues with their sockets, bone-anchored prosthesis systems are an alternative and sometimes the only way to be mobile and independent. The present cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the gait performance and quality of life of a group of patients treated with bone-anchored systems compared to those of participants treated with a conventional socket-suspended prosthesis.
METHODS
A total of 17 participants with a socket-suspended and 20 with a bone-anchored prosthesis were included. Gait patterns were examined for symmetry, and performance was assessed using the six-minute walk test and the timed "Up & Go" test. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to detect signs of osteoarthritis in both hips. Mobility in everyday life and quality of life were assessed using questionnaires.
FINDINGS
There were no differences between the groups regarding the quality of life, daily mobility, and gait performance. The step width was significantly higher for the patients using socket-suspended prosthesis. The socket-suspended group showed a significant asymmetry regarding the step length. In the socket-suspended group, the prosthetic leg showed significantly higher cartilage abrasion than the contralateral leg did.
INTERPRETATION
Large differences in the measured outcomes in both groups illustrate the very different capabilities of the individual participants, which is apparently not primarily determined by the type of treatment. For patients who are satisfied with the socket treatment and perform well, bone-anchored prosthesis systems may not necessarily improve their functional capabilities and perceived quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37075546
pii: S0268-0033(23)00085-2
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2023.105954
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105954Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.