Military Service Members with Major Lower Extremity Fractures Return to Running with a Passive-dynamic Ankle-foot Orthosis: Comparison with a Normative Population.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity fractures represent a high percentage of reported injuries in the United States military and can devastate a service member's career. A passive dynamic ankle-foot orthosis (PD-AFO) with a specialized rehabilitation program was initially designed to treat military service members after complex battlefield lower extremity injuries, returning a select group of motivated individuals back to running. For high-demand users of the PD-AFO, the spatiotemporal gait parameters, agility, and quality of life is not fully understood with respect to uninjured runners. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Do patients who sustained a lower extremity fracture using a PD-AFO with a specialized rehabilitation program differ from uninjured service members acting as controls, as measured by (1) time-distance and biomechanical parameters associated with running, (2) agility testing (using the Comprehensive High-level Activity Mobility Predictor performance test and Four Square Step Test), and (3) the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment score. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective data analysis of a longitudinally collected data registry of patients using a PD-AFO from 2015 to 2017 at a single institution. The specific study cohort were patients with a unilateral lower extremity fracture who used the PD-AFO for running. Patients had to be fit with a PD-AFO, have completed rehabilitation, and have undergone a three-dimensional (3-D) running analysis at a self-selected speed at the completion of the program. Of the 90 patients who used the PD-AFO for various reasons, 10 male service members with lower extremity fractures who used a PD-AFO for running (median [range] age 29 years [22 to 41], height 1.8 meters [1.7 to 1.9], weight 91.6 kg [70 to 112]) were compared with 15 uninjured male runners in the military (median age 33 years [21 to 42], height 1.8 meters [1.7 to 1.9], weight 81.6 kg [71.2 to 98.9]). The uninjured runners were active-duty service members who voluntarily participated in a gait analysis at their own self-selected running speeds; to meet eligibility for inclusion as an uninjured control, the members had to be fit for full duty without any medical restrictions, and they had to be able to run 5 miles. The controls were then matched to the study group by age, weight, and height. The primary study outcome variables were the running time-distance parameters and frontal and sagittal plane kinematics of the trunk and pelvis during running. The Four Square Step Test, Comprehensive High-level Activity Mobility Predictor scores, and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment scores were analyzed for all groups as secondary outcomes. Nonparametric analyses were performed to determine differences between the two groups at p < 0.05. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, patients with a PD-AFO exhibited no differences compared with uninjured runners in median (range) running velocity (3.9 meters/second [3.4 to 4.2] versus 4.1 meters/second [3.1 to 4.8], median difference 0.2; p = 0.69), cadence (179 steps/minute [169 to 186] versus 173 steps/minute [159 to 191], median difference 5.8; p = 0.43), stride length (2.6 meters [2.4 to 2.9] versus 2.8 meters [2.3 to 3.3], median difference 0.2; p = 0.23), or sagittal plane parameters such as peak pelvic tilt (24° [15° to 33°] versus 22° [14° to 28°], median difference 1.6°; p = 0.43) and trunk forward flexion (16.2° [7.3° to 23°) versus 15.4° [4.2° to 21°), median difference 0.8°; p > 0.99) with the numbers available. For the secondary outcomes, runners with a PD-AFO performed worse in Comprehensive High-level Activity Mobility Predictor performance testing than uninjured runners did, with their four scores demonstrating a median (range) single-limb stance of 35 seconds (32 to 58) versus 60 seconds (60 to 60) (median difference 25 seconds; p < 0.001), t-test result of 15 seconds (13 to 20) versus 13 seconds (10 to 14) (median difference 2 seconds; p < 0.001), and Illinois Agility Test result of 22 seconds (20 to 25) versus 18 seconds (16 to 20) (median difference 4; p < 0.001). Edgren side step test result of 20 meters (16 to 26) versus 24 meters (16 to 29) (median difference 4 meters; p = 0.11) and the Four Square Step Test of 5.5 seconds (4.1 to 7.2) versus 4.2 seconds (3.1 to 7.3) (median difference 1.3 seconds; p = 0.39) were not different between the groups with an effect size of 0.83 and 0.75, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of our study demonstrate that service members run with discernible differences in high-level mobility and demonstrate inferior self-reported patient functioning while having no differences in speed and biomechanics compared with their noninjured counterparts with the sample size available. This study is an early report on functional gains of highly motivated service members with major lower extremity injuries who use a PD-AFO and formalized therapy program to run. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Do Gait and Functional Parameters Change After Transtibial Amputation Following Attempted Limb Preservation in a Military Population?

BACKGROUND: Surgical attempts at lower limb preservation after trauma may be complicated by pain and gait disturbances, which can impact the activity level of a military service member. It is unclear how later transtibial amputation (TTA) might affect patients who elect this option after attempts at limb preservation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of the study were to compare preamputation and postamputation (1) the numeric rating scale for pain and pain medication use; (2) self-reported activity level, Four Square Step Test (FSST) results, and assistive device use; and (3) spatiotemporal variables measured with instrumented gait analysis in individuals who elected TTA after multiple attempts at limb preservation. METHODS: Retrospective review revealed 10 patients with unilateral lower extremity injuries who underwent late TTA between 2008 and 2016. All patients had undergone multiple limb preservation attempts and had completed instrumented gait evaluations as part of their routine care before and after TTA. One patient was excluded as a result of short followup. The remaining nine patients (eight men, 29 ± 6 years) averaged five surgeries before amputation. Injuries were from improvised explosive devices (six), motorcycle accidents (two), and one training accident. Strict indications for amputation were pain, difficulties performing activities of daily living, limited physical function, and medication dependence. Data for the aforementioned purposes were collected by gait laboratory staff before and 8 to 17 months after amputation. Time to TTA after initial injury was 5 ± 3 years. At the start of the gait analysis study, pain was assessed at rest, activity level was recorded by patient report, and the FSST was administered. RESULTS: After TTA, there was a decrease in pain scores from 4 ± 2 to 1 ± 1 and patients using narcotics decreased from four to only one patient. Self-reported walking endurance increased from 1 ± 1 mile to 7 ± 8 miles and patients able to run increased from one patient to eight with the ninth having no desire to run but bicycled. Patient FSST times improved from 12 ± 10 seconds to 5 ± 1 seconds. No patients required assistive devices after TTA. There were improvements in velocity (108 ± 16 cm/s to 142 ± 7 cm/s), stride length (129 ± 14 cm to 154 ± 8 cm), cadence (101 ± 9 steps/min to 111 ± 7 steps/min), and step width (16 ± 3 cm to 12 ± 2 cm) between pre- and postassessments. Asymmetric single-limb stance time was measured both pre- and postamputation; this did not worsen with the increase in walking velocity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study show that TTA after attempted limb preservation in a young, motivated group of service members after traumatic injuries can be successful in decreasing pain and narcotic use and can allow for high-level functional activities. Future studies will be needed to compare this cohort with patients who underwent early TTA after traumatic injury. However, we acknowledge that the resources and support structure available for this population are unique and may not be readily available to the general population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Circadian dysfunction and fluctuations in gait initiation impairment in Parkinson's disease.

In people with Parkinson's disease (PD), anticipatory postural adjustments may be prolonged, reduced in amplitude, or absent, contributing to impaired gait initiation. In addition to motor symptoms, disturbance of the circadian rhythm (CR) is one of the common non-motor symptoms of PD. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether time of day modulates the magnitude of gait initiation impairment, and furthermore, if there is any relationship between CR dysfunction and impaired postural control in PD. Seven consecutive 24-h periods of wrist actigraphy (as a measure of CR), and then gait initiation studies (at two different times, 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., of the same day) were conducted in two cohorts of ten subjects each: people with PD, and age-matched control subjects. We found that in the PD group, the amplitude of medial/lateral center of pressure (CoP) excursions were significantly reduced in the afternoon as compared with the morning session across all trials (p < 0.05). Actigraphy results showed that CR amplitude was significantly decreased (p < 0.05) in the PD group, which suggests that the PD group suffered from CR disruption. More importantly, changes in medial/lateral CoP displacement were correlated with abnormal CR amplitude in the PD group. These findings provide novel evidence that diurnal fluctuations in treatment-resistant motor symptoms of PD, such as postural and gait initiation deficits, are associated with CR dysfunction. This study supports the idea that therapeutic correction of circadian misalignment should be considered in combination with pharmaceutical and rehabilitation treatments of motor symptoms in PD.

Running footstrike pattern effect on lower extremity work in an individual with transtibial amputation.

Asymmetrical loading favoring the intact limb during running has been associated with increased prevalence of reported knee pain and potential risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in that limb for patients with amputation. Footstrike pattern alterations have been suggested to help alleviate some overloading of the knee, but little is known about how it affects the rest of the limb. The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the effect of footstrike pattern on the distribution of loading throughout the lower extremities during submaximal running of an individual with transtibial amputation (TTA). This study compared loading distribution among the lower extremity joints in a male patient who sustained a TTA and ran using both a rearfoot (RFS) and forefoot strike (FFS) pattern. The results of this case demonstrated that altering footstrike pattern minimally alters the total mechanical work being done by the lower extremities but more so affects the relative amount of work contributed by the individual joints. In the intact limb, the ankle contributes the most to power absorption using a FFS pattern while the knee has a larger role using a RFS pattern. This case suggests that the footstrike pattern affects lower extremity loading distribution at the joint level, and adopting a FFS pattern may alleviate overloading the knee, whereas a RFS pattern may reduce loading at the ankle in individuals with TTA.

Assessments of trunk postural control within a fall-prevention training program for service members with lower limb trauma and loss.

BACKGROUND: Trunk postural control (TPC) is critical in maintaining balance following perturbations (i.e., avoiding falls), and impaired among persons with lower extremity trauma, contributing to elevated fall risk. Previously, a fall-prevention program improved TPC in individuals with unilateral transtibial amputation following trip-inducing perturbations. However, it is presently unclear if these improvements are task specific. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do improvements to TPC gained from a fall-prevention program translate to another task which assesses TPC in isolation (i.e., unstable sitting)? Secondarily, can isolated TPC be used to identify who would benefit most from the fall-prevention program? METHODS: Twenty-five individuals (21 male/4 female) with lower extremity trauma, who participated in a larger fall-prevention program, were included in this analysis. Trunk flexion and flexion velocity quantified TPC following perturbation; accelerometer-based sway parameters quantified TPC during unstable sitting. A generalized linear mixed-effects model assessed training-induced differences in TPC after perturbation; a generalized linear model assessed differences in sway parameters following training. Spearman's rho related training-induced changes to TPC following perturbation (i.e., the difference in TPC measures at pre- and post-training assessments) with pre- vs. post-training changes to sway parameters during unstable sitting (i.e., the difference in sway parameters at pre- and post-training assessments) as well as pre-training sway parameters with the pre- vs. post-training differences in TPC following perturbation. RESULTS: Following training, trunk flexion angles decreased, indicating improved TPC; however, sway parameters did not differ pre- and post-training. In addition, pre- vs. post-training differences in TPC following perturbation were neither strongly nor significantly correlated with sway parameters. Moreover, pre-training sway parameters did not correlate with pre- vs. post-training differences in trunk flexion/flexion velocity. SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, these results indicate that improvements to TPC gained from fall-prevention training are task-specific and do not translate to other activities. Moreover, isolated TPC measures are not able to identify individuals that benefit most from the fall-prevention program.

High-Level Performance After the Return to Run Clinical Pathway in Patients Using the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis.

BACKGROUND: Severe ankle and foot injuries in the US military can result in high-level functional limitation, lost duty days, and medical discharge. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of the Return to Run Clinical Pathway (RTR) in returning patients with lower extremity fractures who utilized the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO) to high-level mobility. METHODS: Thirty servicemembers with lower extremity fractures who utilized the IDEO unilaterally and completed the RTR at Naval Medical Center San Diego were included in this retrospective operational review. The Comprehensive High-level Activity Mobility Predictor (CHAMP) and all subtests were completed prior to and after completion of the RTR as part of routine clinical care. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare CHAMP scores before and after the RTR. RESULTS: Significant improvements were found in the T test (mean change, faster by 5.3 seconds; 95% confidence interval: 3.6, 7.1 seconds; P = .03) and total CHAMP score (mean change, 4.2 points; 95% confidence interval: 3.0, 5.3 points; P<.05). No significant changes were noted in the single-legged stance subtest, the Edgren sidestep test, or the Illinois agility test. CONCLUSION: The RTR led to improvements in high-level, multidirectional mobility in IDEO users with a history of fractures. Applicability of the intervention used in this study requires further validation before widespread use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(7):529-535. Epub 13 Feb 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8763.