Clinical Outcomes Comparing Two Prosthetic Knee Designs in Individuals with Unilateral Transfemoral Amputation in Turkey.

Balance Functional Mobility Prosthesis Prosthetic Satisfaction Quality of Life Transfemoral Amputation

Journal

Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal

ISSN: 2561-987X

Titre abrégé: Can Prosthet Orthot J

Pays: Canada

ID NLM: 101775715

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021

Historique:

received: 22 12 2020

accepted: 22 06 2021

medline: 29 6 2021

pubmed: 29 6 2021

entrez: 24 8 2023

Statut: epublish

Résumé

Clinical outcome assessments provide important input for the rehabilitation of individuals with transfemoral amputation. Differences in prosthetic knee designs may influence clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare functional mobility, balance, prosthetic satisfaction and quality of life in individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation with microprocessor-controlled (MPK) and non-microprocessor knee designs (Non-MPK). The study included ten experienced MPK (Rheo Knee) users (Group 1) and ten experienced Non-MPK (Total Knee 6MWT results of the MPK group were significantly higher than Non-MPK group (p<0.05). In the MPK group a strong negative correlation was found between the FSST and the 6MWT (r=-0.661, p=0.038). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups (p>0.05) comparing balance, prosthesis satisfaction and quality of life values. The findings will inform about the patient's prognosis and the expected clinical outcomes when prescribing an MPK or an Non-MPK. Individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation covered longer distances using an MPK compared to Non-MPK.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

Clinical outcome assessments provide important input for the rehabilitation of individuals with transfemoral amputation. Differences in prosthetic knee designs may influence clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare functional mobility, balance, prosthetic satisfaction and quality of life in individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation with microprocessor-controlled (MPK) and non-microprocessor knee designs (Non-MPK).

METHODOLOGY METHODS

The study included ten experienced MPK (Rheo Knee) users (Group 1) and ten experienced Non-MPK (Total Knee

FINDINGS RESULTS

6MWT results of the MPK group were significantly higher than Non-MPK group (p<0.05). In the MPK group a strong negative correlation was found between the FSST and the 6MWT (r=-0.661, p=0.038). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups (p>0.05) comparing balance, prosthesis satisfaction and quality of life values.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS

The findings will inform about the patient's prognosis and the expected clinical outcomes when prescribing an MPK or an Non-MPK. Individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation covered longer distances using an MPK compared to Non-MPK.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35297 PMID: 37614931 PMC: PMC10443503

pubmed: 37614931

doi: 10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35297

pii: cpoj.v4i1.35297

pmc: PMC10443503

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

35297

Informations de copyright

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors had no interests which might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.

Références

Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2020 Sep;54(5):502-506

pubmed: 33155559

Technol Innov. 2016 Sep;18(2-3):175-183

pubmed: 28066526

Sensors (Basel). 2020 Nov 26;20(23):

pubmed: 33256247

J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001 Jan;91(1):13-22

pubmed: 11196327

Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Jan;27(1):40-5

pubmed: 21889241

Int J Rehabil Res. 2000 Mar;23(1):31-8

pubmed: 10826123

Gait Posture. 2014;39(1):424-9

pubmed: 24021523

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Apr;(361):39-47

pubmed: 10212594

Eur Respir J. 2014 Dec;44(6):1447-78

pubmed: 25359356

J Prosthet Orthot. 2019 Jan;31(1):2-8

pubmed: 30662248

Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Oct;94(10):804-10

pubmed: 25768067

Clin Rehabil. 2015 Jun;29(6):581-91

pubmed: 25288047

Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Jul;16(5):453-464

pubmed: 31469023

Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Jun;27(5):460-5

pubmed: 22221344

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;88(2):207-17

pubmed: 17270519

J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Apr;32(4):183-189

pubmed: 29315200

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Mar;90(3):440-6

pubmed: 19254609

Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993 Jul;7(4):448-51

pubmed: 8359304

Sensors (Basel). 2020 Aug 24;20(17):

pubmed: 32847127

Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2021 Jan;64(1):101405

pubmed: 32561506

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Apr;91(4):644-52

pubmed: 20382300

Scand J Rehabil Med. 1992;24(2):83-90

pubmed: 1604266

Int J Rehabil Res. 2018 Mar;41(1):63-73

pubmed: 29293160

Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Dec;92(12):1110-8

pubmed: 23900009

Disabil Rehabil. 2003 May 6;25(9):480-6

pubmed: 12745943

Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019 Aug;43(4):396-401

pubmed: 31057092

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Nov;94(11):2194-202

pubmed: 23856150

J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(1):175-86

pubmed: 22492346

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Oct;91(10):1565-70

pubmed: 20875515