A block randomised controlled trial investigating changes in postural control following a personalised 12-week exercise programme for individuals with lower limb amputation

Do Exercise Programs Improve Fitness, Mobility, and Functional Capacity in Adults With Lower Limb Amputation? A Systematic Review on the Type and Minimal Dose Needed

OBJECTIVE

To answer the following questions: (1) Do physical activity (PA) and exercise improve fitness, mobility, and functional capacity among adults with lower limb amputation (LLA) and (2) What is the type and minimum dose of PA (frequency, intensity and duration) needed?

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Outpatient intervention, outside of the prosthetic rehabilitation phase.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with lower limb amputation living in the community.

INTERVENTION

Any physical activity or exercise intervention.

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Any fitness, mobility, or functional capacity indicators and measurements.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included, totaling 408 adults with LLA. Studies evaluated the effect of structured PA sessions on fitness, mobility, and functional capacity. The highest evidence is for mixed exercise programs, that is, programs combining aerobic exercise with strengthening or balance exercise. There is moderate confidence that 1-3 sessions of 20-60 minutes of exercise per week improves balance, walking speed, walking endurance, and transfer ability in adults with LLA above the ankle. As for flexibility, cardiorespiratory health, lower-limb muscles strength, and functional capacity, there was low confidence that exercise improves these fitness components because of the lack of studies.

CONCLUSION

Exercise 1-3 times per week may improve balance, walking speed, walking endurance, and transfer ability in adults with LLA, especially when combining aerobic exercises with lower limb strengthening or balance exercises. There is a need for most robust studies focusing on the effect of PA on cardiorespiratory health, muscles strength, flexibility, and functional status.

Effectiveness and Equity in Community-Based Rehabilitation on Pain, Physical Function, and Quality of Life After Unilateral Lower Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize evidence for (1) the effectiveness of exercise-based rehabilitation interventions in the community and/or at home after transfemoral and transtibial amputation on pain, physical function, and quality of life and (2) the extent of inequities (unfair, avoidable differences in health) in access to identified interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MEDLINE, PEDro, Cinahl, Global Health, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to August 12, 2021, for published, unpublished, and registered ongoing randomized controlled trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Three review authors completed screening and quality appraisal in Covidence using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Included were randomized controlled trials of exercise-based rehabilitation interventions based in the community or at home for adults with transfemoral or transtibial amputation that assessed effectiveness on pain, physical function, or quality of life.

DATA EXTRACTION

Effectiveness data were extracted to templates defined a priori and the PROGRESS-Plus framework was used for equity factors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eight completed trials of low to moderate quality, 2 trial protocols, and 3 registered ongoing trials (351 participants across trials) were identified. Interventions included cognitive behavioral therapy, education, and video games, combined with exercise. There was heterogeneity in the mode of exercise as well as outcome measures employed. Intervention effects on pain, physical function, and quality of life were inconsistent. Intervention intensity, time of delivery, and degree of supervision influenced reported effectiveness. Overall, 423 potential participants were inequitably excluded from identified trials (65%), limiting the generalizability of interventions to the underlying population.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that were tailored, supervised, of higher intensity, and not in the immediate postacute phase showed greater promise for improving specific physical function outcomes. Future trials should explore these effects further and employ more inclusive eligibility to optimize any future implementation.

Interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes

BACKGROUND

Amputation is described as the removal of an external part of the body by trauma, medical illness or surgery. Amputations caused by vascular diseases (dysvascular amputations) are increasingly frequent, commonly due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD), associated with an ageing population, and increased incidence of diabetes and atherosclerotic disease. Interventions for motor rehabilitation might work as a precursor to enhance the rehabilitation process and prosthetic use. Effective rehabilitation can improve mobility, allow people to take up activities again with minimum functional loss and may enhance the quality of life (QoL). Strength training is a commonly used technique for motor rehabilitation following transtibial (below-knee) amputation, aiming to increase muscular strength. Other interventions such as motor imaging (MI), virtual environments (VEs) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) may improve the rehabilitation process and, if these interventions can be performed at home, the overall expense of the rehabilitation process may decrease. Due to the increased prevalence, economic impact and long-term rehabilitation process in people with dysvascular amputations, a review investigating the effectiveness of motor rehabilitation interventions in people with dysvascular transtibial amputations is warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial (below-knee) amputations resulting from peripheral arterial disease or diabetes (dysvascular causes).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in people with transtibial amputations resulting from PAD or diabetes (dysvascular causes) comparing interventions for motor rehabilitation such as strength training (including gait training), MI, VEs and PNF against each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. prosthesis use, and 2.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Our secondary outcomes were 3. mortality, 4. QoL, 5. mobility assessment and 6. phantom limb pain. We use GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs with a combined total of 30 participants. One study evaluated MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking alone. One study compared two different gait training protocols. The two studies recruited people who already used prosthesis; therefore, we could not assess prosthesis use. The studies did not report mortality, QoL or phantom limb pain. There was a lack of blinding of participants and imprecision as a result of the small number of participants, which downgraded the certainty of the evidence. We identified no studies that compared VE or PNF with usual care or with each other. MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking (one RCT, eight participants) showed very low-certainty evidence of no difference in mobility assessment assessed using walking speed, step length, asymmetry of step length, asymmetry of the mean amount of support on the prosthetic side and on the non-amputee side and Timed Up-and-Go test. The study did not assess adverse events. One study compared two different gait training protocols (one RCT, 22 participants). The study used change scores to evaluate if the different gait training strategies led to a difference in improvement between baseline (day three) and post-intervention (day 10). There were no clear differences using velocity, Berg Balance Scale (BBS) or Amputee Mobility Predictor with PROsthesis (AMPPRO) in training approaches in functional outcome (very low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in adverse events comparing the two different gait training protocols.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of motor rehabilitation in dysvascular amputation. We identified very low-certainty evidence that gait training protocols showed little or no difference between the groups in mobility assessments and adverse events. MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking alone showed no clear difference in mobility assessment (very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report mortality, QoL, and phantom limb pain, and evaluated participants already using prosthesis, precluding the evaluation of prosthesis use. Due to the very low-certainty evidence available based on only two small trials, it remains unclear whether these interventions have an effect on the prosthesis use, adverse events, mobility assessment, mortality, QoL and phantom limb pain. Further well-designed studies that address interventions for motor rehabilitation in dysvascular transtibial amputation may be important to clarify this uncertainty.

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

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.

Effects of Resistance Training in Individuals with Lower Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review

Individuals with lower-limb amputations may have a significant strength deficit. This deficit may be related to the stump length and can lead to changes in gait, reduced energy efficiency, walking resistance, altered joint load, and increased risk of osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. This systematic review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines to examine the effects of resistance training in lower limb amputees. Interventions with resistance training and other training methods were sufficient to achieve muscle strength gain in muscles of the lower limbs, improved balance, and improvements in gait pattern and speed when walking. However, it was impossible to determine from the results whether resistance training was mainly responsible for these benefits or even whether the positive effects presented would be observed with only this training method. When combined with other exercises, interventions with resistance training made possible gains for this population. Accordingly, it is noteworthy that the main finding of this systematic review is that the effects may be different according to the level of amputation, with mainly transtibial and transfemoral amputations studied.

Effectiveness of (Active) Lifestyle Interventions in People With a Lower Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review

Objective

To explore the effectiveness of (active) lifestyle interventions for the health of people with a lower limb amputation in order to offer effective interventions during rehabilitation that may improve physical and psychosocial functioning of people with lower limb amputation.

Data Sources

PubMed, CINAHL and Embase were searched from inception to February 2021.

Study Selection

Inclusion criteria were (1) (quasi-)randomized controlled trial; (2) minimum of 10 participants with a lower limb amputation; (3) lifestyle intervention focusing on physical activity, smoking habits, alcohol use, nutrition, and/or stress management; (4) focus on health outcomes; (5) participants older than 18 years; (6) studies in Dutch, German, or English; and (7) primary research. Title, abstract, and full-text screening and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent assessors.

Data Extraction

Of 2460 studies identified, 13 studies were included in this review. Two studies were of moderate methodological quality, 2 studies were of medium quality, and 9 studies were of poor quality.

Data Synthesis

Lifestyle interventions in the included studies focused on physical activity and stress management. These interventions seemed effective for improving physical fitness, walking capacity, changes in body mass, quality of life, and intensity of physical activity.

Conclusion

Lifestyle interventions focusing on physical activity and stress management seem effective for improving physical and psychosocial functioning of people with a lower limb amputation. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution given the limited methodological quality of the included studies. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of interventions on nutrition, smoking habits, and alcohol use and the effectiveness of combined interventions in people with a lower limb amputation.

The Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions to Improve Gait and Balance in Individuals with Lower Limb Amputations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of exercise interventions to improve gait and balance in individuals with lower limb amputations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscuss, and CINAHL databases until January 2022. Only randomized control trials that evaluated adults (>18 years old) with lower limb amputations and compared any exercise intervention with a traditional prosthetic training were included in the study. Two independent researchers screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the trials. Findings were summarized and meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized clinical trials with 594 participants were included in the study and 12 in quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis indicates that exercise interventions significantly improved walking distance measured with the 2-Minute Walking Test compared to traditional training (mean difference-MD: 8.38, 95% CI: 2.54-14.23; P < 0.01). Gait speed performance also significantly improved after exercise interventions compared to traditional training (MD: 0.10, 95% CI, 0.03-0.16, P <0.01). Meta-analysis of exercise interventions compared to traditional training on the Locomotor Capabilities Index, Timed Up and Go, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence did not show a statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the qualitative analysis demonstrated significant improvement in balance performance after different exercise interventions and traditional training. The studies demonstrated overall good methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

Specific exercise interventions are more effective than traditional prosthetic training to improve walking speed and walking distance among people with lower limb amputation. Findings on balance outcomes are inconsistent and deserve further exploration.

Potential and Limitations of Feedback-Supported Gait Retraining in Users of Lower Limb Prostheses

The outcomes of prosthetic rehabilitation after lower limb loss are, in large part, affected by the effectiveness of the provided gait retraining. The noted prevalence of adverse long-term effects, such as further joint and muscle degeneration, suggests that traditional rehabilitation programs have limitations. Recent advances in technology and in the understanding of motor learning promise the potential for better gait retraining interventions. This article reviews current literature on systems and methodologies of improving gait parameters in those with lower limb prostheses via exercise programs and various biofeedback systems. A total of 13 articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Findings indicate that many of the investigated systems are able to effectively analyze and change gait in the target population, but there remain considerable gaps in the knowledge. It has been noted that feedback modalities and dosage must be customized based on patient characteristics and rehabilitation goals, yet there is currently not enough published evidence to inform such customization.