» Articles » PMID: 31788157

FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES OF BILATERAL TRANSFEMORAL AMPUTEES USING FULL-LENGTH AND STUBBY-LENGTH PROSTHESES

Overview
Journal Technol Innov
Date 2019 Dec 3
PMID 31788157
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Many unilateral amputations are followed by a contralateral amputation within three years, sometimes presenting as bilateral transfemoral amputations. Bilateral transfemoral amputees that successfully use prostheses are an understudied patient population. This study establishes reference values for this population in users of short non-articulating (stubby) or full-length articulating prostheses. Anthropometric and demographic information was collected from participants. Additionally, participants completed a self-reported Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale 12/5 (PEQ-MS) and performed multiple physical mobility tests, including walking tests and the multi-directional Four Square Step Test (FSST). Full-length users rated their abilities to complete the PEQ-MS tasks as less difficult than stubby users in eight of the 12 items. Gait analysis revealed a greater amount of time is spent in stance phase with a greater portion in double limb support for both user groups, and a greater percentage in stance phase for the subject-reported dominant limb. Stubby users' gait velocity had a significant reduction from that of their full-length peers; however, cadence was similar between groups. Both user groups completed the FSST at comparable times. These outcomes may be of benefit for identifying tasks bilateral transfemoral prosthetic users may find to be most difficult as well as for identifying normal ambulation patterns within this population. Future studies with a greater number of subjects would enable these results to be further generalized.

Citing Articles

Mechanical loading of bone-anchored implants during functional performance tests in service members with transfemoral limb loss.

Gladish J, Dearth C, Beachler M, Potter B, Forsberg J, Hendershot B Front Rehabil Sci. 2024; 5:1336115.

PMID: 38560026 PMC: 10978646. DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2024.1336115.


Hip joint and muscle loading for persons with bilateral transfemoral/through-knee amputations: biomechanical differences between full-length articulated and foreshortened non-articulated prostheses.

Toderita D, Favier C, Henson D, Vardakastani V, Sherman K, Bennett A J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023; 20(1):169.

PMID: 38115144 PMC: 10729544. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-023-01296-4.


Prosthetic Rehabilitation of a Female With Bilateral Transfemoral Amputation in Japan: A Case Report.

Tanaka Y, Ueno T Cureus. 2023; 15(10):e46566.

PMID: 37936990 PMC: 10626260. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46566.


Assessment of the relationship between rectus femoris cross-sectional area and knee extension strength in the prosthesis users with transtibial amputation: A case-control study.

Atalay K, Coskun O, Giray E, Gunduz O, Yagci I Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 68(2):222-230.

PMID: 35989968 PMC: 9366482. DOI: 10.5606/tftrd.2022.7655.


Selecting, Administering, and Interpreting Outcome Measures among Adults with Lower-Limb Loss: An Update for Clinicians.

Sions J, Beisheim E, Seth M Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2021; 8(3):92-109.

PMID: 33767921 PMC: 7987109. DOI: 10.1007/s40141-020-00274-4.

References
1.
Huang C, Jackson J, Moore N, Fine P, Kuhlemeier K, Traugh G . Amputation: energy cost of ambulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979; 60(1):18-24. View

2.
Howard C, Wallace C, Stokic D . Lower limb preference on goal-oriented tasks in unilateral prosthesis users. Gait Posture. 2012; 36(2):249-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.03.001. View

3.
Wright D, Marks L, Payne R . A comparative study of the physiological costs of walking in ten bilateral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008; 32(1):57-67. DOI: 10.1080/03093640701669108. View

4.
Hafner B, Willingham L, Buell N, Allyn K, Smith D . Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88(2):207-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030. View

5.
Esquenazi A . Geriatric amputee rehabilitation. Clin Geriatr Med. 1993; 9(4):731-43. View