Locomotor activities of individuals with lower-limb amputation

A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Prosthetic Foot Research Work: 2000 to 2022

This study aims to highlight recent research work on topics around prosthetic feet through a scientometric analysis and historical review. The most cited publications from the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection database were identified and analyzed from 1 January 2000 to 31 October 2022. Original articles, reviews with full manuscripts, conference proceedings, early access documents, and meeting abstracts were included. A scientometric visualization analysis of the bibliometric information related to the publications, including the countries, institutions, journals, references, and keywords, was conducted. A total of 1827 publications met the search criteria in this study. The related publications grouped by year show an overall trend of increase during the two decades from 2000 to 2022. The United States is ranked first in terms of overall influence in this field (n = 774). The Northwestern University has published the most papers on prosthetic feet (n = 84). Prosthetics and Orthotics International has published the largest number of studies on prosthetic feet (n = 151). During recent years, a number of studies with citation bursts and burst keywords (e.g., diabetes, gait, pain, and sensor) have provided clues on the hotspots of prosthetic feet and prosthetic foot trends. The findings of this study are based on a comprehensive analysis of the literature and highlight the research topics on prosthetic feet that have been primarily explored. The data provide guidance to clinicians and researchers to further studies in this field.

Beyond step counts: Including wear time in prosthesis use assessment for lower-limb amputation

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to test a novel activity monitor that tracks the time a prosthesis is worn, and the nature of the ambulatory activity conducted with the prosthesis. These capabilities allow prosthesis users' wear and accommodation practices (e.g., temporary doffing) to be monitored, and the intensity of their activities to be assessed.

Methods

A portable limb-socket motion sensing system was used to monitor doffs, walk bouts (≥5 steps), low locomotion (2-4 steps), stationary positions, and weight shifts in a group of transtibial prosthesis users. The relationship between doff time and active motion time was investigated, and durations of low and high intensity active motions were compared.

Results

For the 14 participants tested, the median prosthesis day duration ranged from 12.8-18.8 h. Eleven participants typically doffed five or fewer times per day, and three participants typically doffed 10 or more times per day. Nine participants demonstrated a positive correlation between daily doff duration and active motion duration. Six participants spent more time in weight shifts than walk bouts, while eight participants spent more time in walk bouts than weight shifts.

Conclusion

Capturing don time and temporary doffs and distinguishing weight shifts from walks may provide insight relevant to patient care. Longer-term monitoring studies should be conducted, and the clinical utility of the data evaluated.

Clinical mobility metrics estimate and characterize physical activity following lower-limb amputation

Background

Regular physical activity following a lower-limb amputation is essential for maintaining health and a high quality of life. Most adults with a lower-limb amputation, however, participate in insufficient daily physical activity, and thus, are predisposed to poor health outcomes. Estimating physical activity after lower-limb amputation via common mobility metrics may aid in clinical decisions regarding treatment prioritization and prosthesis prescription. The objectives of this study were (a) to examine associations between daily physical activity and patient-reported and performance-based mobility metrics among adults with lower-limb amputation, and (b) to determine whether patient-reported and performance-based mobility metrics can distinguish between physical activity status [i.e., sedentary (< 5000 steps/day) or non-sedentary (≥ 5000 steps/day)] of adults with lower-limb amputation.

Methods

A cross-sectional study involving 35 adults with a unilateral transtibial (N = 23; 63.0 ± 10.4 years) or transfemoral amputation (N = 12; 58.8 ± 9.5 years) was conducted. Participants completed patient-reported (Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale) and performance-based mobility metrics (L-Test, 10-m Walk Test, 6-min Walk Test). Physical activity, i.e., average steps/day, was measured with an accelerometer.

Results

Patient-reported and performance-based mobility metrics were associated with daily physical activity (p < 0.050). Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale scores, L-Test time, 10-m Walk Test speed and 6-min Walk Test distance independently explained 11.3%, 31.8%, 37.6% and 30.7% of the total variance in physical activity. Receiver operating characteristic curves revealed patient-reported and performance-based mobility metrics significantly distinguish between physical activity status, i.e., sedentary (< 5000 steps/day) versus non-sedentary (≥ 5000 steps/day). Preliminary cut-points for mobility metrics to classify physical activity status were determined.

Conclusions

Following a lower-limb amputation, patient-reported and performance-based mobility metrics may estimate daily physical activity, thereby aiding clinical decisions regarding treatment prioritization as well as prosthesis selection.

Reported Outcome Measures in Studies of Real-World Ambulation in People with a Lower Limb Amputation: A Scoping Review

Background: The rapidly increasing use of wearable technology to monitor free-living ambulatory behavior demands to address to what extent the chosen outcome measures are representative for real-world situations. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the purpose of use of wearable activity monitors in people with a Lower Limb Amputation (LLA) in the real world, to identify the reported outcome measures, and to evaluate to what extent the reported outcome measures capture essential information from real-world ambulation of people with LLA. Methods: The literature search included a search in three databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE) for articles published between January 1999 and January 2022, and a hand-search. Results and conclusions: 98 articles met the inclusion criteria. According to the included studies’ main objective, the articles were classified into observational (n = 46), interventional (n = 34), algorithm/method development (n = 12), and validity/feasibility studies (n = 6). Reported outcome measures were grouped into eight categories: step count (reported in 73% of the articles), intensity of activity/fitness (31%), type of activity/body posture (27%), commercial scores (15%), prosthetic use and fit (11%), gait quality (7%), GPS (5%), and accuracy (4%). We argue that researchers should be more careful with choosing reliable outcome measures, in particular, regarding the frequently used category step count. However, the contemporary technology is limited in providing a comprehensive picture of real-world ambulation. The novel knowledge from this review should encourage researchers and developers to engage in debating and defining the framework of ecological validity in rehabilitation sciences, and how this framework can be utilized in the development of wearable technologies and future studies of real-world ambulation in people with LLA.