Comparison of prosthetic mobility and balance in transfemoral amputees with bone-anchored prosthesis vs. socket prosthesis

Author:

Gailey Robert S.1,Kristal Anat1,Al Muderis Munjed2,Lučarević Jennifer3,Clemens Sheila4,Applegate E. Brooks5ORCID,Isaacson Brad M.67,Pasquina Paul F.68,Symsack Allison78,Gaunaurd Ignacio A.19ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Coral Gables, FL, USA

2. The Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia

3. Division of Health Sciences Orthotics and Prosthetics, California State University, Dominquez Hills, Carson, CA, USA

4. Department of Physical Therapy, Florida International University, Nicole Wertheim College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Miami, FL, USA

5. Department of Educational Leadership, Research & Technology, University of Western Michigan, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

6. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

7. The Geneva Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA

8. Department of Rehabilitation, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA

9. Bruce W. Carter Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA

Abstract

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: 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: Causal comparative. 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: 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: 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.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Rehabilitation,Health Professions (miscellaneous)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3