Measurements of Best, Worst, and Average Socket Comfort Are More Reliable Than Current Socket Comfort in Established Lower Limb Prosthesis Users.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate test-retest reliability and related measurement properties of items developed to assess best, worst, and average prosthetic socket comfort. DESIGN: Methodological research to assess test-retest reliability of 4 individual socket comfort survey items. Socket comfort items were included in a self-report paper survey, which was administered to participants 2 to 3 days apart. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: A minimum convenience sample of participants (N=63) was targeted for this study; 72 lower limb prosthesis users (>1y postamputation) completed the survey and were included in the final dataset. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The expanded socket comfort score (ESCS) was adapted from the original socket comfort score (SCS). The original SCS is a single-item self-report instrument developed to assess a lower limb prosthesis user's current socket comfort. Three additional items were designed to assess the user's best, worst, and average socket comfort over the previous 7 days. RESULTS: Best, worst, and average socket comfort items demonstrated better reliability, as indicated by higher intraclass correlation coefficients. As such, these items also exhibited lower measurement error and smaller minimal detectable change values than the item that measured current socket comfort. However, test-retest coefficients for all 4 ESCS items were below the level desired for evaluation of within-individual changes of socket comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Items that assess best, worst, and average comfort provide a more stable measurement of socket fit than the existing SCS instrument. Although administration of all 4 ESCS items may provide more comprehensive assessment of a lower limb prosthesis user's socket fit, administrators should expect variations in scores over time owing to the variable nature of the underlying construct over time. Future research should examine whether the ESCS provides an improved overall assessment of socket fit.

Use of Standardized Outcome Measures for People With Lower Limb Amputation: A Survey of Prosthetic Practitioners in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical resources available for the assessment of health outcomes in people with lower limb amputation and to understand barriers and facilitators associated with use of standardized outcome measures in clinical practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: General community (online). PARTICIPANTS: A volunteer sample of prosthetic practitioners was recruited through national professional organizations. Eligible participants were practitioners certified by a professional prosthetics organization and currently practicing as a prosthetist, prosthetist-orthotist, or prosthetic assistant. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A custom-designed online survey on clinical use of patient-reported and performance-based standardized outcome measures to assess patients with lower limb amputation. RESULTS: A total of 375 participants completed the survey. Most participants (79%) reported that they are encouraged or required to administer standardized outcome measures in their clinic or facility. Most participants reported that use of patient-reported and performance-based outcome measures are within their scope of practice (88%) and that they have the knowledge required for outcomes measurement (84%). Few participants agreed that outcomes measurement is standardized across the profession (30%). Most participants had access to small spaces and equipment for outcomes measurement, such as short hallways (65%-94%), stairs (69%), and tablets with wireless internet connection (83%). Most participants reported that they would be willing to spend between 5 (36% of participants) and 10 (43% of participants) minutes on self-reported surveys, and between 10 (41% of participants) and 20 (28% of participants) minutes on performance-based tests. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes measurement is encouraged or expected in contemporary prosthetic practice. Strategies to improve standardization and efficiency of administration are needed to facilitate routine use of outcome measures in clinical care.

A Comparison of the Two-Minute Walk Test (2MWT) and Comprehensive High-level Activity Mobility Predictor (CHAMP) in People with a Leg Prosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the two-minute walk test (2MWT) could serve as an alternative measure of high-level mobility in lower limb prosthesis users when circumstances preclude administration of the Comprehensive High-level Activity Mobility Predictor (CHAMP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Indoor recreational athletic field and gymnasium. SUBJECTS: Fifty-eight adult lower limb prosthesis users with unilateral or bilateral lower limb amputation who participate in recreational athletic activities. INTERVENTION: N/A. MAIN MEASURES: The 2MWT and CHAMP while using their preferred prosthesis(es) on an indoor artificial athletic field or hardwood gymnasium floor. RESULTS: Thirty-nine men and nineteen women with a median age of 38.3 years participated in the study. Most participants experienced amputation(s) due to trauma (62%) or tumor (10%) and were generally higher functioning (K4 (91.4%) and K3 (8.6%)). The median (range) score for the CHAMP was 23.0 points (1.5-33.5) and the mean ± standard deviation (range) 2MWT distance walked was 188.6 ± 33.9 m (100.2-254.3 m). The CHAMP demonstrated a strong positive relationship with 2MWT (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). The 2MWT distance predicted 70% of the variance in CHAMP score. CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2MWT does not test multi-directional agility like the CHAMP, they were found to be highly correlated. If space is limited, the two-minute walk test can serve as an alternative measure for assessing high-level mobility capabilities in lower limb prosthesis users.

Emulating the Effective Ankle Stiffness of Commercial Prosthetic Feet Using a Robotic Prosthetic Foot Emulator.

Prosthetic foot selection for individuals with lower limb amputation relies primarily on clinician judgment. The prosthesis user rarely has an opportunity to provide experiential input into the decision by trying different feet. A prosthetic foot emulator (PFE) is a robotic prosthetic foot that could facilitate prosthesis users' ability to trial feet with different mechanical characteristics. Here, we introduce a procedure by which a robotic PFE is configured to emulate the sagittal plane effective ankle stiffness of a range of commercial prosthetic forefeet. Mechanical testing was used to collect data on five types of commercial prosthetic feet across a range of foot sizes and intended user body weights. Emulated forefoot profiles were parameterized using Bezier curve fitting on ankle torque-angle data. Mechanical testing was repeated with the PFE, across a subset of emulated foot conditions, to assess the accuracy of the emulation. Linear mixed-effects regression and Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement analyses were used to compare emulated and commercial ankle torque-angle data. Effective ankle stiffness of the emulated feet was significantly associated with the corresponding commercial prosthetic feet (p <0.001). On average, the emulated forefeet reproduced the effective ankle stiffness of corresponding commercial feet within 1%. Furthermore, differences were independent of prosthetic foot type, foot size, or user body weight. These findings suggest that commercial prosthetic foot properties can be effectively mimicked by a PFE, which is the important first step toward enabling prosthesis users to quickly trial different feet using a PFE as part of prosthetic foot prescription.

Clinical Resources for Assessing Mobility of People with Lower-Limb Amputation: Interviews with Rehabilitation Clinicians.

Introduction: Mobility tests are increasingly used in prosthetic rehabilitation to evaluate patient outcomes. Knowledge of the space, equipment, and time resources available to clinicians who work in different settings can guide recommendations for which tests are most clinically-feasible and promote coordination of mobility testing among members of the rehabilitation team. The primary aim of this study was to characterize the different resources available to clinicians for measuring mobility of people with lower limb amputation. A secondary aim was to identify performance tasks that clinicians use to evaluate prosthetic mobility. Materials and methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with prosthetists, physical therapists, and physiatrists who treat people with lower limb amputation. Researchers used convenience and snowball sampling to identify participants. Interviews included questions about the resources available for conducting mobility tests, as well as questions about which tasks clinicians deemed valuable to assessing mobility of patients with lower limb amputation. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Summary and frequency statistics were calculated for quantitative data; explanatory comments were summarized. Results: Interviews were conducted with 25 clinicians (8 prosthetists, 9 physical therapists, and 8 physiatrists). Participants had access to multiple spaces and basic measurement equipment. The maximum time participants were willing to spend on performance tests varied. Physiatrists reported less time available (median=10 minutes, range 5-30 minutes) than prosthetists and physical therapists (median=30 minutes, range 5-60 minutes for both professions). Mobility tasks commonly used to evaluate patients with lower limb amputation included sit-to-stand, standing balance, walking, and varying speed. Participant comments suggested that mobility tests need to be quick, simple, and add value; existing mobility tests are beneficial but challenging to incorporate into practice; mobility tests should reflect real-world activities; and technological advancements could improve mobility testing. Conclusions: Clinicians generally had small-to-medium spaces, basic measurement equipment, and sufficient training to administer mobility tests in their clinics. A limiting factor was time, which can be addressed through selection of efficient measures and collaboration within the rehabilitation team.

Mechanically and physiologically optimizing prosthetic elevated vacuum systems in people with transtibial amputation: a pilot study.

Introduction: The most suitable elevated vacuum (EV) pressure may differ for each individual prosthesis user depending on suspension needs, socket fit, prosthetic components, and health. Mechanical and physiological effects of EV were evaluated in an effort to determine the optimal vacuum pressure for three individuals. Methods: Instrumented EV sockets were created based on the participants' regular EV sockets. Inductive distance sensors were embedded into the wall of the socket at select locations to measure limb movement relative to the socket. Each participant conducted an activity protocol while limb movement, limb fluid volume, and user-reported comfort were measured at various socket vacuum pressure settings. Results: Increased socket vacuum pressure resulted in reduced limb-socket displacement for each participant; however, 81-93% of limb movement was eliminated by a vacuum pressure setting of 12 (approximately -9 inHg). Relative limb-socket displacement by sensor location varied for each participant, suggesting distinct differences related to socket fit or residual limb tissue content. The rate of limb fluid volume change and the change in socket comfort did not consistently differ with socket vacuum pressure, suggesting a more complex relationship unique to each individual. Conclusions: Practitioners may use individual responses to optimize socket vacuum pressure settings, balancing mechanical and physiological effects of EV for improved clinical outcomes.

Prosthetists' perceptions of information obtained from a lower limb prosthesis monitoring system: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Prosthetists have limited knowledge of their patients' use of a prosthesis outside of the clinical environment. Prosthesis-mounted monitors can be used to directly measure patients' prosthesis use and activity. Prosthetists' opinions regarding potential clinical applications for sensor-based information may inform further development of this technology. A pilot study was conducted to assess prosthetists' perceptions of prosthesis use and activity information obtained by a monitoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three local prosthetists were recruited to participate in the study. One patient with transtibial amputation from each prosthetist volunteered to wear limb presence and activity monitors for two weeks. Collected data were used to determine prosthesis use and activity. Each prosthetist completed a survey, examined clinical reports of their patient's prosthesis use and activity, and participated in a semi-structured interview. Survey results and interview transcripts were analyzed to identify and compare prosthetists' perceptions. RESULTS: Prosthesis use and activity varied among patients. Prosthetists over- and under-estimated patient activity, relative to measurements recorded by the monitors. All three prosthetists selected multiple clinical applications for the prosthesis use and activity information in the survey, and several additional applications were suggested during the interviews. When presented with multiple report formats, prosthetists found features of each to be clinically useful. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis-mounted monitors may provide prosthetists with a better understanding of their patients' prosthesis use and activity. Information provided by the monitoring system may inform clinical decisions and promote evidence-based practices.

A study to assess whether fixed-width beam walking provides sufficient challenge to assess balance ability across lower limb prosthesis users.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of fixed-width beam walking for assessing balance in lower limb prosthesis users. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Laboratory. SUBJECTS: Lower limb prosthesis users. METHODS: Participants attempted 10 walking trials on three fixed-width beams (18.6, 8.60, and 4.01 wide; 5.5 m long; 3.8 cm high). MAIN MEASURES: Beam-walking performance was quantified using the distance walked to balance failure. Heuristic rules applied to each participant's beam-walking distance to classify each beam as "too easy," "too hard," or "appropriately challenging" and determine whether any single beam provided an appropriate challenge to all participants. The number of trials needed to achieve stable beam-walking performance was quantified for appropriately challenging beams by identifying the last inflection point in the slope of each participant's trial-by-trial cumulative performance record. RESULTS: In all, 30 unilateral lower limb prosthesis users participated in the study. Each of the fixed-width beams was either too easy or too hard for at least 33% of the sample. Thus, no single beam was appropriately challenging for all participants. Beam-walking performance was stable by trial 8 for all participants and by trial 6 for 90% of participants. There was no significant difference in the number of trials needed to achieve stable performance among beams ( P = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that a clinical beam-walking test would require multiple beams to evaluate balance across a range of lower limb prosthesis users, emphasizing the need for adaptive or progressively challenging balance tests. While the administrative burden of a multiple-beam balance test may limit clinical feasibility, alternatives to ease this administrative burden are proposed.

Cross-Sectional Assessment of Factors Related to Pain Intensity and Pain Interference in Lower Limb Prosthesis Users.

OBJECTIVE: To determine relationships between pain sites and pain intensity/interference in people with lower limb amputations (LLAs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Lower limb prosthesis users with unilateral or bilateral amputations (N=1296; mean time since amputation, 14.1y). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain intensity (1 item to assess average pain), PROMIS pain interference (4-item short form to assess the consequences of pain in desired activities), and questions that asked participants to rate the extent to which each of the following were a problem: residual limb pain (RLP), phantom limb pain (PLP), knee pain on the nonamputated side, back pain, and shoulder pain. RESULTS: Nearly three quarters (72.1%) of participants reported problematic pain in 1 or more of the listed sites. Problematic PLP, back pain, and RLP were reported by 48.1%, 39.2%, and 35.1% of participants, respectively. Knee pain and shoulder pain were less commonly identified as problems (27.9% and 21.7%, respectively). Participants also reported significantly (P<.0001) higher pain interference (T-score ± SD, 54.7±9.0) than the normative sample based on the U.S. population (T-score ± SD, 50.0±10.0). Participants with LLAs rated their pain intensity on average ± SD at 3.3±2.4 on a 0-to-10 scale. Pain interference (ρ=.564, P<.0001) and intensity (ρ=.603, P<.0001) were positively and significantly correlated with number of pain sites reported. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic pain symptoms, especially RLP, PLP, and back pain, affect most prosthetic limb users and have the potential to greatly restrict participation in life activities.

Construct Validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in Adults With Lower Limb Amputation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), a self-report mobility measure for people with lower limb amputation (LLA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Private prosthetic clinics (n=37). PARTICIPANTS: Current lower limb prosthesis users (N=199; mean age ± SD, 55.4±14.3y; 71.4% men) were assessed before receiving a replacement prosthesis, prosthetic socket, and/or prosthetic knee. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Convergent construct validity was examined using correlations between participants' PLUS-M T-scores and measures of physical function, mobility, and balance, including the Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP), timed Up and Go (TUG), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale (PEQ-MS), and Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Known-groups construct validity was evaluated by comparing differences in PLUS-M T-scores among participants grouped by Medicare Functional Classification Level (MFCL). RESULTS: PLUS-M T-scores demonstrated a moderate positive relationship with AMP scores (ρ=.54, P<.001) and a moderate negative relationship with TUG times (ρ=-.56, P<.001). The PLUS-M also showed a strong positive relationship with PEQ-MS scores (ρ=.78, P<.001), ABC Scale scores (ρ=.81, P<.001), and PROMIS-PF T-scores (ρ=.81, P<.001). Significant differences (P<.05) in PLUS-M T-scores were found among groups of people classified by different MFCLs. CONCLUSIONS: Study results support the validity of the PLUS-M as a self-report measure of prosthetic mobility. Correlations between PLUS-M and measures of physical function, mobility, and balance indicate convergent construct validity. Similarly, significant differences in PLUS-M T-scores across MFCL groups provide evidence of known-groups construct validity. In summary, evidence indicates that PLUS-M has good construct validity among people with LLA.

Development of Standardized Material Testing Protocols for Prosthetic Liners.

A set of protocols was created to characterize prosthetic liners across six clinically relevant material properties. Properties included compressive elasticity, shear elasticity, tensile elasticity, volumetric elasticity, coefficient of friction (CoF), and thermal conductivity. Eighteen prosthetic liners representing the diverse range of commercial products were evaluated to create test procedures that maximized repeatability, minimized error, and provided clinically meaningful results. Shear and tensile elasticity test designs were augmented with finite element analysis (FEA) to optimize specimen geometries. Results showed that because of the wide range of available liner products, the compressive elasticity and tensile elasticity tests required two test maxima; samples were tested until they met either a strain-based or a stress-based maximum, whichever was reached first. The shear and tensile elasticity tests required that no cyclic conditioning be conducted because of limited endurance of the mounting adhesive with some liner materials. The coefficient of friction test was based on dynamic coefficient of friction, as it proved to be a more reliable measurement than static coefficient of friction. The volumetric elasticity test required that air be released beneath samples in the test chamber before testing. The thermal conductivity test best reflected the clinical environment when thermal grease was omitted and when liner samples were placed under pressure consistent with load bearing conditions. The developed procedures provide a standardized approach for evaluating liner products in the prosthetics industry. Test results can be used to improve clinical selection of liners for individual patients and guide development of new liner products.

Self-Reported Cognitive Concerns in People With Lower Limb Loss.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences between self-reported cognitive concerns in people with lower limb loss (LLL) and normative data derived from the U.S. general population, and secondarily to determine whether there were cognitive differences based on amputation etiology or age. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: A volunteer sample of persons with LLL (N=1086) resulting from trauma or dysvascular complications who regularly use a prosthetic limb. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Applied Cognition-General Concerns Short Form version 1.0 (Neuro-QoL ACGC), an 8-item self-report measure of general cognitive concerns. RESULTS: People with LLL reported significantly more cognitive concerns than the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders normative sample. Mean Neuro-QoL ACGC scores were significantly lower than normative values (P<.001) across subgroups defined by age (ie, <40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+ years) and subgroups defined by etiology (ie, traumatic and dysvascular LLL). However, there were no significant differences in cognitive concerns among age subgroups (P=.84) or between the etiology subgroups (P=.58). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders normative sample, individuals with LLL report greater concerns with cognitive health. Cognitive concerns were not differentially affected by age or cause of amputation. The presence of cognitive concerns in people with LLL suggests a need to assess perceived cognitive function in order to tailor education and training in prosthetic use and care.

Health-related profiles of people with lower limb loss.

OBJECTIVES: To construct profiles of self-reported health indicators to examine differences and similarities between people with lower limb loss and a normative sample (hereafter called the norm) and to compare health indicators between subgroups based on level and etiology of limb loss. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with unilateral lower limb loss (N=1091) participated in this study. Eligibility criteria included lower limb loss due to trauma or dysvascular complications and regular use of a prosthesis. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item Health Profile version 1.0 measures physical function, pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, and satisfaction with participation in social roles. The norm includes 5239 individuals representative of the U.S. general population in sex, age, race, ethnicity, and education. RESULTS: People with lower limb loss reported statistically significantly worse physical function, pain interference, and satisfaction with participation in social roles and significantly less fatigue than did the norm. People with transfemoral (ie, above-knee) amputation significantly differed in physical function from people with transtibial (ie, below-knee) amputation. Similarly, people with amputation due to trauma and dysvascular etiology significantly differed in physical function and satisfaction with social roles after adjusting for relevant clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: People with lower limb loss generally report worse physical function, pain interference, and satisfaction with social roles than do the norm. People with dysvascular amputation reported worse physical function and satisfaction with social roles than did people with traumatic amputation. Health indicator profiles are an efficient way of providing clinically meaningful information about numerous aspects of self-reported health in people with lower limb loss.

Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank.

PURPOSE: Measuring constructs such as mobility with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can enhance clinical and scientific understanding of how health conditions, like lower limb amputation, impact patients' lives. When developing PRO questionnaires, cognitive interviews (CIs) are used to examine whether survey items are understandable, clear, and meaningful. The aim of this study was to use CIs to inform item development for the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), a PRO that measures mobility in prosthetic limb users. METHODS: Thirty-six CIs were conducted with 30 prosthetic limb users. Each participant responded to up to 30 items from the PLUS-M candidate item set. Each item was reviewed by a minimum of five participants who differed in self-reported mobility, literacy, level of amputation, and time since amputation. Items were revised based on participant feedback, and substantially revised items were re-evaluated through additional CIs. RESULTS: Feedback from CIs identified substantial issues in 76 of the total 156 items. These items were subsequently modified or eliminated. CONCLUSION: Cognitive interviews were an essential qualitative step in the development of the PLUS-M item bank and resulted in better functioning items.

Criterion and construct validity of prosthesis-integrated measurement of joint moment data in persons with transtibial amputation.

Prosthesis-integrated sensors are appealing for use in clinical settings where gait analysis equipment is unavailable, but accurate knowledge of patients' performance is desired. Data obtained from load cells (inferring joint moments) may aid clinicians in the prescription, alignment, and gait rehabilitation of persons with limb loss. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of prosthesis-integrated load cells for routine use in clinical practice. Level ground walking of persons with transtibial amputation was concurrently measured with a commercially available prosthesis-integrated load cell, a 10-camera motion analysis system, and piezoelectric force plates. Ankle and knee flexion/extension moments were derived and measurement methods were compared via correlation analysis. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.661 for ankle pronation/supination moments to 0.915 for ankle flexion/extension moments (P < .001). Root mean squared errors between measurement methods were in the magnitude of 10% of the measured range and were explainable. Differences in results depicted differences between systems in definition and computation of measurement variables. They may not limit clinical use of the load cell, but should be considered when data are compared directly to conventional gait analysis data. Construct validity of the load cell (ie, ability to measure joint moments in-situ) is supported by the study results.

Falls perceived as significant by lower limb prosthesis users are generally associated with fall consequences rather than circumstances.

PURPOSE: To determine if falls perceived as significant by lower limb prosthesis (LLP) users were associated with fall circumstances and/or consequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The circumstances and consequences of LLP users' most significant fall in the past 12-months were collected using the Lower Limb Prosthesis User Fall Event Survey. Participants rated fall significance from 0 (not significant) to 10 (extremely significant), which was then dichotomized into "low" and "high". Binary logistic regression was used to assess associations between fall significance and fall circumstances and consequences. RESULTS: Ninety-eight participants were included in the analysis. Five fall consequences were associated with greater significance: major injury (OR = 26.7, 95% CI: 1.6-459.6, p = 0.024), need to seek medical treatment (OR = 19.0, 95% CI: 1.1-329.8, p = 0.043), or allied-health treatment (OR = 18.2, 95% CI: 2.3-142.4, p = 0.006), decreased balance confidence (OR = 10.9, 95% CI: 2.4-49.3, p = 0.002), and increased fear of falling (OR = 7.5, 95% CI: 2.4-23.8, p = 0.001), compared to two fall circumstances: impact to the arm (OR = 5.0, 95% CI: 2.0-12.1, p = 0.001), and impact to the face, head, or neck (OR = 9.7, 95% CI: 1.2-77.4, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Significant falls were generally more associated with fall consequence than fall circumstances.

Falls remain common, injurious, costly, and socially isolating events for lower limb prosthesis (LLP) users.Falls perceived as most significant by LLP users were associated with injury, reduced balance confidence, and increased fear-of-falling.Studying falls perceived by LLP users as significant may help reduce falls that matter most to LLP users.

How do users define success with a lower limb prosthesis? A focus group study.

PURPOSE: In this study, we sought to examine how lower limb prosthesis users define success, what constructs they associate with success, and what barriers and facilitators contribute to achieving success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Purposively sampled lower limb prosthesis users were recruited to participate in a focus group study. Verbatim transcripts from focus groups were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Identified constructs were mapped to existing outcome measures, and a conceptual framework for success with a lower limb prosthesis was proposed. RESULTS: Thirty-one lower limb prosthesis users participated in one of five focus groups. Five themes were developed: keep moving forward, despite ups and downs; being able to live MY normal life and do the things I want to do with ease; learning what works for me and how to manage my prosthesis; only I can define my success; and what about my mental health? Several constructs that do not align with existing measures were identified, including prosthetic attention, grief/loss after amputation, and trust in prosthesis. Facilitators for success described by participants included peer connection, finding the right prosthetist, and mental health support. CONCLUSIONS: According to lower limb prosthesis users, success must be patient-driven, individually defined, and continually reassessed.

According to prosthesis users, success with a lower limb prosthesis should be patient-driven, individually defined, and continually reassessed.Lower limb prosthesis users described facilitators for success to include peer connection, finding the right prosthetist, mental health support, and access to appropriate prosthetic technology.Constructs described by lower limb prosthesis users as relating to success that are currently difficult to measure include prosthetic attention, grief/loss after amputation, prosthesis management, ability to blend in, and trust in the prosthesis.

Evaluating fall event definitions relative to lower limb prosthesis users' lived experiences.

PURPOSE: Evaluate specific elements of previously proposed fall and near-fall definitions to determine whether they fully capture lower limb prosthesis (LLP) users' lived experiences. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 LLP users. Interview transcripts were reviewed, coded, and analyzed using deductive thematic analysis to identify shared experiences and inform revisions to previously reported definitions. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged: a fall can be initiated by more than just a loss of balance, loss of balance and losing balance are considered similar, falls are not limited to landing on the ground or floor, and catching yourself and recovering your balance are distinct responses to a loss of balance. CONCLUSIONS: Two revisions were made to previous definitions to better align with LLP users' experiences and historically overlooked fall circumstances. A fall is defined as a loss of balance or sudden loss of support where your body lands on the ground, floor, or another object. A near-fall was defined as a loss of balance where you caught yourself or recovered your balance without landing on the ground, floor, or another object. Implementation of these new definitions will aid the collection of accurate, consistent, and meaningful fall data, enhancing aggregation and comparison across studies.

Falls are a top health concern for lower limb prosthesis users.Understanding how lower limb prosthesis users experience falls helps build meaningful fall definitions.Standardized definitions allow clinicians to document fall events with greater consistency and justify fall prevention interventions.

Use of standardized outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputation: A survey of prosthetic practitioners in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Outcome measures (OMs) are useful tools; however, clinicians may find implementing them into clinical practice challenging. OBJECTIVES: To characterize Canadian prosthetists' use of OMs for people with lower-limb amputation, including motivations for use, comfort selecting OMs, resources available for administration, and barriers to implementation. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between March and July 2021. Orthotics Prosthetics Canada sent Canadian prosthetists an invitation to take the online survey. RESULTS: Forty-nine Certified Prosthetists completed the survey. Only 16% of participants reported that they were expected to use OMs. Participants reported being more comfortable administering performance-based OMs than self-report surveys. More than two-thirds of participants agreed that OMs "can be administered with knowledge they have" and are "within their scope of practice." However, less than 25% agreed that OMs are "administered in a standardized way in the profession," and less than 40% indicated they are "easy to make part of my routine." Participants reported they generally have time and space to do OMs, but there was no agreed-on reason to use them. CONCLUSIONS: Use of OMs among Canadian prosthetists seems to be low relative to prosthetists in the United States. Education, financial incentives, or changes to professional expectations are likely needed to increase routine OM use. Efforts to improve the standardization of OM administration and ease the incorporation of OMs into routine practice may also increase use. Canadian prosthetists may elevate their standards of clinical practice and better understand the impact of prosthetic treatments on their patients by more routinely using OMs.

The development of rating scales to evaluate experiential prosthetic foot preference for people with lower limb amputation.

BACKGROUND: Selection of a foot is an important aspect of prosthetic prescription and vital to maximizing mobility and functional goals after lower limb amputation. Development of a standardized approach to soliciting user experiential preferences is needed to improve evaluation and comparison of prosthetic feet. OBJECTIVE: To develop rating scales to assess prosthetic foot preference and to evaluate use of these scales in people with transtibial amputation after trialing different prosthetic feet. DESIGN: Participant-blinded, repeated measures crossover trial. SETTING: Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Medical Centers, laboratory setting. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two male prosthesis users with unilateral transtibial amputation started, and 68 participants completed this study. INTERVENTIONS: Participants trialed three mobility-level appropriate commercial prosthetic feet briefly in the laboratory. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: "Activity-specific" rating scales were developed to assess participants' ability with a given prosthetic foot to perform typical mobility activities (eg, walking at different speeds, on inclines, and stairs) and "global" scales to rate overall perceived energy required to walk, satisfaction, and willingness to regularly use the prosthetic foot. Foot preference was determined by comparing the rating scale scores, after laboratory testing. RESULTS: The greatest within-participant differences in scores among feet were observed in the "incline" activity, where 57% ± 6% of participants reported 2+ point differences. There was a significant association (p < .05) between all "activity-specific" rating scores (except standing) and each "global" rating score. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized rating scales developed in this study could be used to assess prosthetic foot preference in both the research and clinical settings to guide prosthetic foot prescription for people with lower limb amputation capable of a range of mobility levels.