Are Gait Parameters for Through-knee Amputees Different From Matched Transfemoral Amputees?

BACKGROUND: Through-knee amputation is a common amputation level after battlefield injuries during the medical evacuation process. However, there are limited data comparing through-knee amputation with transfemoral amputation as a definitive amputation level in terms of gait parameters. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does through-knee amputation result in improved gait velocity when compared with matched transfemoral amputees? (2) Do through-knee amputees have a faster gait cadence than matched transfemoral amputees? (3) Do through-knee amputees have a different stride length or stride width than matched transfemoral amputees? (4) Does through-knee amputation result in decreased work of ambulation when compared with matched transfemoral amputees? METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2012, six male active-duty military patients who had undergone unilateral through-knee amputations as a result of trauma underwent gait studies at our institution. Of those, four of six underwent gait analysis after being able to walk for at least 3 months without assistive devices, and this group was studied here. Most through-knee amputees who were not included had elective revisions of their amputations from through-knee to a transfemoral amputation before completing 3-month gait data. Each of the amputees studied was matched to a transfemoral amputee based on height, body mass index, and contralateral amputation level resulting in a case-control study of active-duty military male amputee patients. Inclusion required complete gait data collected while walking at a self-selected pace wearing custom prosthetic devices. The through-knee amputees had a median (range) age of 32 years (23-41 years) and the transfemoral amputees had a median age of 24 years (22-27 years). Three-dimensional gait data were collected and analyzed. A power analysis found that to detect a clinically important difference (set at a change in work of ambulation of 1 J/kgm) with a p value of 0.05 and a ß set to 0.2, a study population of 56 patients per group would be required; that being said, our results on a much smaller population must be considered exploratory. RESULTS: With the numbers available, we found no differences in gait velocity when comparing through-knee (1.18 m/sec) and matched transfemoral amputees (1.20 m/sec, difference of medians = 0.02 m/sec; p = 0.964). Likewise, we found no differences in gait cadence when comparing through-knee with transfemoral amputees (104 versus 106 steps/min, respectively, difference of means 2 steps/min, p = 0.971). There was no difference in stride length or stride width when comparing through-knee (70 cm and 18 cm, respectively) with transfemoral amputees (70 cm and 19 cm, respectively; p = 0.948 and p = 0.440). With the numbers available, we did not identify a difference in the work of ambulation for through-knee amputees when compared with matched transfemoral amputees (8.3 versus 7.5 J/kg, respectively; p = 0.396). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we are unable to demonstrate any functional advantages of knee disarticulation over transfemoral amputation. Although there are theoretical advantages for maintaining an intact femur during the medical evacuation and serial débridement process, we question the utility of knee disarticulation as a definitive amputation level; however, larger numbers of patients are needed to confirm these results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Do patients with bone bridge amputations have improved gait compared with patients with traditional amputations?

BACKGROUND: Two surgical techniques for performing a transtibial amputation include a traditional approach and a bone bridge approach. To date, there is no conclusive evidence of superiority of either technique in terms of temporal-spatial, kinetic, and mechanical work parameters. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to compare instrumented three-dimensional gait parameters and mechanical work measurements of patients who had undergone a traditional or bone bridge amputation at the transtibial level. Residual limb length and its effect on those functional outcomes was a secondary interest irrespective of amputation type. METHODS: This retrospective comparative study included 14 active-duty military men with a mean age of 25 years (range, 20-28 years). Comparisons were made between seven patients with traditional and seven patients with bone bridge amputations at the transtibial level. The patients walked at self-selected and fast paces while three-dimensional gait analysis data were collected and comparisons were made between patients with the two amputation types as well as by length of the residual limb. RESULTS: With the numbers available, we observed no differences between the two surgical groups at either speed for the temporal-spatial parameters or mechanical work metrics. However, the bone bridge group did demonstrate greater rolloff vertical ground reaction force during the fast walking condition with a median 1.02% of body weight compared with 0.94% (p = 0.046), which suggests a more stable platform in terminal stance. When the two groups were combined into one to test the effect of residual limb length, the linear regression resulted in an R(2) value of 0.419 (p = 0.012), in which patients with longer residual limbs had improved F3 force values during self-selected walking. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, limited functional differences were found between the two groups in this small pilot study, so a superior surgical technique could not be determined; whereas our limited sample size prevents a firm conclusion of no difference, our data can be considered hypothesis-generating for future, larger studies. Although some evidence indicated that patients with a bone bridge have improved loading at higher speeds, a regression of all patients walking at self-selected speed indicates that as residual limb length increases, loading increases regardless of amputation type. Thus, our data suggest it is important to preserve residual limb length to allow for improved loading in terminal stance.

Method for evoking a trip-like response using a treadmill-based perturbation during locomotion.

Because trip-related falls account for a significant proportion of falls by patients with amputations and older adults, the ability to repeatedly and reliably simulate a trip or evoke a trip-like response in a laboratory setting has potential utility as a tool to assess trip-related fall risk and as a training tool to reduce fall risk. This paper describes a treadmill-based method for delivering postural perturbations during locomotion to evoke a trip-like response and serve as a surrogate for an overground trip. Subjects walked at a normalized velocity in a Computer Assisted Rehabilitation Environment (CAREN). During single-limb stance, the treadmill belt speed was rapidly changed, thereby requiring the subject to perform a compensatory stepping response to avoid falling. Peak trunk flexion angle and peak trunk flexion velocity during the initial compensatory step following the perturbation were smaller for responses associated with recoveries compared to those associated with falls. These key fall prediction variables were consistent with the outcomes observed for laboratory-induced trips of older adults. This perturbation technique also demonstrated that this method of repeated but randomly delivered perturbations can evoke consistent, within-subject responses.