OASIS 1: Retrospective analysis of four different microprocessor knee types

Walking ability of individuals fitted with transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses: A comparative study of gait parameters

OBJECTIVE

This study presents the walking abilities of participants fitted with transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses using a total of 14 gait parameters.

DESIGN

Two-centre retrospective cross-sectional comparative study.

SETTING

Research facilities equipped with tridimensional motion capture systems.

PARTICIPANTS

Two control arms included eight able-bodied participants arm (54 ± 9 years, 1.75 ± 0.07 m, 76 ± 7 kg) and nine participants fitted with transfemoral socket-suspended prostheses arm (59 ± 9 years, 1.73 ± 0.07 m, 80 ± 16 kg). The intervention arm included nine participants fitted with transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses arm (51 ± 13 years, 1.78 ± 0.09 m, 87.3 ± 16.1 kg).

INTERVENTION

Fitting of transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses.

MAIN MEASURES

Comparisons were performed for two spatio-temporal, three spatial and nine temporal gait parameters.

RESULTS

The cadence and speed of walking were 107 ± 6 steps/min and 1.23 ± 0.19 m/s for the able-bodied participants arm, 88 ± 7 steps/min and 0.87 ± 0.17 m/s for the socket-suspended prosthesis arm, and 96 ± 6 steps/min and 1.03 ± 0.17 m/s for bone-anchored prosthesis arm, respectively. Able-bodied participants and bone-anchored prosthesis arms were comparable in age, height, and body mass index as well as cadence and speed of walking, but the able-bodied participant arm showed a swing phase 31% shorter. Bone-anchored and socket-suspended prostheses arms were comparable for age, height, mass, and body mass index as well as cadence and speed of walking, but the bone-anchored prosthesis arm showed a step width and duration of double support in seconds 65% and 41% shorter, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Bone-anchored and socket-suspended prostheses restored equally well the gait parameters at a self-selected speed. This benchmark data provides new insights into the walking ability of individuals using transfemoral bionics bone-anchored prostheses.

Neuromuscular adaptations after osseointegration of a bone-anchored prosthesis in a unilateral transfemoral amputee - a case study

PURPOSE

Many individuals with a lower limb amputation experience problems with the fitting of the socket of their prosthesis, leading to dissatisfaction or device rejection. Osseointegration (OI)- the implantation of a shaft directly interfacing with the remaining bone- is an alternative for these patients. In this observational study, we investigated how bone anchoring influences neuromuscular parameters during balance control in a patient with a unilateral transfemoral amputation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Center of pressure (CoP) and electromyography (EMG) signals from muscles controlling the hip and the ankle of the intact leg were recorded during quiet standing six months before and one and a half years after this patient underwent an OI surgery. Results were compared to a control group of nine able-bodied individuals.

RESULTS

Muscle co-activation and EMG intensity decreased after bone anchoring, approaching the levels of able-bodied individuals. Muscle co-activation controlling the ankle decreased in the high-frequency range, and the EMG intensity spectrum decreased in the lower-frequency range for all muscles when vision was allowed. With eyes closed, the ankle extensor muscle showed an increased EMG intensity in the high-frequency range post-surgery. CoP length increased in the mediolateral direction of the amputated leg.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings point to shifts in the patient's neuromuscular profile towards the one of able-bodied individuals.

Factors leading to falls in transfemoral prosthesis users: a case series of sound-side stumble recovery responses

Background

Transfemoral prosthesis users’ high fall rate is related to increased injury risk, medical costs, and fear of falling. Better understanding how stumble conditions (e.g., participant age, prosthesis type, side tripped, and swing phase of perturbation) affect transfemoral prosthesis users could provide insight into response deficiencies and inform fall prevention interventions.

Methods

Six unilateral transfemoral prosthesis users experienced obstacle perturbations to their sound limb in early, mid, and late swing phase. Fall outcome, recovery strategy, and kinematics of each response were recorded to characterize (1) recoveries versus falls for transfemoral prosthesis users and (2) prosthesis user recoveries versus healthy adult recoveries.

Results

Out of 26 stumbles, 15 resulted in falls with five of six transfemoral prosthesis users falling at least once. By contrast, in a previously published study of seven healthy adults comprising 214 stumbles using the same experimental apparatus, no participants fell. The two oldest prosthesis users fell after every stumble, stumbles in mid swing resulted in the most falls, and prosthesis type was not related to strategy/fall outcomes. Prosthesis users who recovered used the elevating strategy in early swing, lowering strategy in late swing, and elevating or lowering/delayed lowering with hopping in mid swing, but exhibited increased contralateral (prosthetic-side) thigh abduction and trunk flexion relative to healthy controls. Falls occurred if the tripped (sound) limb did not reach ample thigh/knee flexion to sufficiently clear the obstacle in the elevating step, or if the prosthetic limb did not facilitate a successful step response after the initial sound-side elevating or lowering step. Such responses generally led to smaller step lengths, less anterior foot positioning, and more forward trunk flexion/flexion velocity in the resulting foot-strikes.

Conclusions

Introducing training (e.g., muscle strength or task-specific motor skill) and/or modifying assistive devices (e.g., lower-limb prostheses or exoskeletons) may improve responses for transfemoral prosthesis users. Specifically, training or exoskeleton assistance could help facilitate sufficient thigh/knee flexion for elevating; training or prosthesis assistance could provide support-limb counteracting torques to aid in elevating; and training or prosthesis assistance could help initiate and safely complete prosthetic swing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12984-022-01070-y.

Impact of microprocessor prosthetic knee on mobility and quality of life in patients with lower limb amputation: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Advanced technologies have made available the development of microprocessor prosthetic knee (MPK) to improve autonomy of patients with lower limb amputation. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the use of all types of MPK on patients' functional status and quality of life.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted this review according to the PRISMA Guidelines on Medline (via Ovid), Scopus and SportDiscuss. All identified articles were screened for their eligibility by two reviewers using Covidence software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) or the NIH Quality Assessment Tool were used to assess the quality of the studies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eighteen articles were included in the present review (7 randomized controlled trials - RCT), 6 cross-sectional and 5 follow-up studies). Number of participants included varied from 20 to 602, protocols' length varied from a single session to 12 weeks of use of MPK. Taken together, MPK users compared to NMPK users tend to present better functional status and mobility. Quality of life was also positively impacted in MPK users. On the other hand, the superiority of more advanced MPKs such as the Genium^® is less clear, especially given the improvements over time of other MPKs such as the C-leg^® and the Rheo knee^®.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, while it is clear that MPKs outperform NMPKs both for functional status and quality of life, additional benefits of one MPK over another is less clear. Future studies are needed to clarify these aspects.

OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes

Introduction

Recently, many prosthetic devices were subjected to reimbursement coding review. Several prosthetic feet that were historically coded with the shock-attenuating function were recoded. The purpose of this analysis was to compare patient-reported functional mobility across a range of prosthetic feet using real-world clinical outcomes data.

Methods

A retrospective, observational review. A univariate generalized linear model was used to assess mobility across foot categories and between different prosthetic feet coded as L5987 or L5981.

Results

The final sample analyzed comprised of 526 individuals and four mutually exclusive categories of feet examined across a total of 10 different prosthetic foot types. The comparison of prosthetic foot categories were significantly different from the control category (i.e. historically L5981).

Conclusions

The current data suggest the development of some prosthetic foot designs using advanced materials and geometric designs can provide comparable functional benefits as those with distinct shock absorbing mechanical features. Emphasizing functional performance over visible features may be a pathway towards higher performance for the end user.

Trends and Opportunities in Health Economic Evaluations of Prosthetic Care Innovations

Overcoming obstacles to prosthetic fittings requires frequent tryouts of sockets and components. Repetitions of interventions are upsetting for users and place substantial economic burden on healthcare systems. Encouraging prosthetic care innovations capable of alleviating clinical and financial shortcomings of socket-based solutions is essential. Nonetheless, evidence of socio-economic benefits of an innovation are required to facilitate access to markets. Unfortunately, complex decisions must be made when allocating resources toward the most relevant health economic evaluation (HEE) at a given stage of development of an innovation. This paper first, aimed to show the importance and challenges of HEEs of intervention facilitating prosthetic fittings. Next, the main trends in HEEs at various phases of product development and clinical acceptance of prosthetic care innovations were outlined. Then, opportunities for a basic framework of a preliminary cost-utility analysis (CUA) during the mid-stage of development of prosthetic care innovations were highlighted. To do this, fundamental and applied health economic literature and prosthetic-specific publications were reviewed to extract and analyse the trends in HEEs of new medical and prosthetic technologies, respectively. The findings show there is consensus around the weaknesses of full CUAs (e.g., lack of timeliness, resource-intensive) and strengths of preliminary CUAs (e.g., identify evidence gaps, educate design of full CUA, fast-track approval). However, several obstacles must be overcome before preliminary CUA of prosthetic care innovations will be routinely carried out. Disparities of methods and constructs of usual preliminary CUA are barriers that could be alleviated by a more standardized framework. The paper concludes by identifying that there are opportunities for the development of a basic framework of preliminary CUA of prosthetic care innovations. Ultimately, the collaborative design of a framework could simplify selection of the methods, standardise outcomes, ease comparisons between innovations and streamline pathways for adoption. This might facilitate access to economical solutions that could improve the life of individuals suffering from limb loss.

A Preliminary Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prosthetic Care Innovations: Basic Framework

A preliminary cost-utility analysis (CUA) of prosthetic care innovations can provide timely information during the early stage of product development and clinical usage. Concepts of preliminary CUAs are emerging. However, several obstacles must be overcome before these analyses are performed routinely. Disparities of methods and high uncertainty make the outcomes of usual preliminary CUAs challenging to interpret, appraise and share. These shortcomings create opportunities for a basic framework of preliminary CUAs. First, I introduced a basic framework of a preliminary CUA built around a series of constructs and hands-on recommendations. Then, I appraised this framework considering the strengths and weaknesses, barriers and facilitators, and return on investment. The design of the basic framework was determined through the review of health economic and prosthetic-specific literature. A preliminary CUA comparing the costs and utilities between usual intervention and an innovation could be achieved through a 15-step iterative process focusing on feasibility, constructs, analysis, and interpretation of outcomes. This CUA provides sufficient evidence to identify knowledge gaps and improvement areas, educate about the design of subsequent full CUAs, and obtain fast-track approval from governing bodies. Like previous CUAs, the main limitations were inherent to the constructs (e.g., narrow perspective, plausible scenarios, mid-term time horizon, substantial assumptions, data mismatch, high uncertainty). Key facilitators potentially transferable across preliminary CUAs of prosthetic care innovations included choosing abided constructs, capitalizing on prior schedules of expenses, and benchmarking baseline or incremental utilities. This new approach with preliminary CUA can simplify the selection of methods, standardize outcomes, ease comparisons between innovations, and streamline pathways for adoption. Further collegial efforts toward validating standard preliminary CUAs will facilitate access to economic prosthetic care innovations, improving the lives of individuals suffering from limb loss worldwide.