Does terminology matter? Perspectives from people with limb difference, clinicians, and researchers.

OBJECTIVE: Elicit preferred terminology among people with limb difference, as well as healthcare and/or research professionals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 122 individuals (people with limb difference n=65; healthcare and/or research professionals n=57) completed an online survey. People were included if they: 1) were 18 years of age or older, 2) self-identified as having limb difference (regardless of etiology) or as a healthcare or research professional (with experience working with people with limb difference), and 3) lived in the US for the majority of the time in their selected role. INTERVENTIONS: N/A MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Importance of terminology, preference towards person-first or identity-first terms, preferred terms, and individual perspectives on terminology preferences. RESULTS: Most participants identified as White (92.6%). Age significantly differed between groups (people with limb difference= 49.9 ± 15.4; professionals=41.0 ± 14.3; p=0.001). Fewer professionals (5.3%) reported that terminology was slightly or not at all important to them, compared to people with limb difference (approximately 30%) (χ2=16.6, p=0.002). While 73.7% of professionals reported a preference for person-first terminology, the sample of people with limb difference were more evenly split, as 42.9% reported preferences for identity-first terminology and 50.8% reported a preference for person-first terminology. The most frequently selected limb and population terms, respectively, were residual limb and individual/person with limb difference, except many people with limb difference indicated they preferred "amputee" when speaking about a population. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants indicated terminology was very or extremely important, and both groups tended to prefer the terms residual limb (limb term) and individual/person with limb difference (population term). However, this study does not intend to recommend terminology, but rather help inform terminology choices that are centered around people with limb difference. Individuality and context should be considered when deciding terminology. Future studies should include more participants from racially/ethnically minoritized groups, and people with limb difference who have dysvascular and/or congenital etiologies.

Robotic-Enhanced Prosthetic Liners for Vibration Therapy: Reducing Phantom Limb Pain in Transfemoral Amputees.

Phantom limb pain, a common challenge for amputees, lacks effective treatment options. Vibration therapy is a promising non-pharmacologic intervention for reducing pain intensity, but its efficacy in alleviating phantom limb pain requires further investigation. This study focused on developing prosthesis liners with integrated vibration motors to administer vibration therapy for phantom limb pain. The prototypes developed for this study addressed previous issues with wiring the electronic components. Two transfemoral amputees participated in a four-week at-home trial, during which they used the vibration liner and rated their initial and final pain intensity on a numeric rating scale each time they had phantom pain. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather feedback following the at-home trial. Both participants described relaxing and soothing sensations in their residual limb and phantom limb while using vibration therapy. One participant reported a relaxation of his phantom limb sensations, while both participants noted a decrease in the intensity of their phantom limb pain. Participants said the vibration liners were comfortable but suggested that the vibration could be stronger and that aligning the contacts could be easier. The results of this study highlight the potential effectiveness of using vibration therapy to reduce the intensity of phantom limb pain and suggest a vibration liner may be a feasible mode of administering the therapy. Future research should address optimizing the performance of the vibration liners to maximize their therapeutic benefits.

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.

Clinical outcomes measurement in pediatric lower limb prosthetics: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify clinical measures that have been used to evaluate function, health related quality of life (HRQoL), and/or satisfaction in children who use lower limb prostheses (LLP). The data reported on psychometric properties for children who use LLP were collected for each measure. METHODS: First, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched using broad search terms to identify standardized outcome measures of function, HRQoL, and/or satisfaction with treatment used in pediatric LLP research published in 2001 or after. For each of the eligible measures found, a second search was performed to identify psychometric properties (e.g., validity, reliability) assessed with children who use LLP. RESULTS: Forty-four standardized outcome measures were identified from 41 pediatric LLP research articles. Five measures (i.e., Gait Outcomes Assessment for Lower Limb Differences, Functional Mobility Assessment, Child Amputee Prosthetics Project- Prosthesis Satisfaction Inventory, Child Amputee Prosthetics Project- Functional Scale Index, and Lower Limb Function Questionnaire) had data on psychometric properties for children who use LLP. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies report psychometric data for assessing the overall HRQoL, function, and/or satisfaction for children who use LLP. Further research is needed to validate or create new outcome measures that assess the HRQoL, satisfaction, and/or function of children who use LLP.

The lower limb-loss rehabilitation continuum (LLRC) - a framework for program design and implementation.

Purpose: The multistep journey to prosthetic device-enabled functioning following amputation requires a structured approach for optimal care delivery, but such program structures and outcomes are inadequately characterized. The study is responsive by describing an implementation framework for lower limb loss rehabilitation and evaluating its utility.Materials and methods: The lower limb loss rehabilitation continuum framework (LLRC) was developed using literature-based continuum of care and amputation phase concepts as well as input from limb loss rehabilitation stakeholders. LLRC structure includes five sequential steps (Postsurgical Stabilization (PS), Preprosthetic Rehabilitation (PPR), Limb Healing and Maturation (LHM), Prosthetic Fitting (PF), Prosthetic Rehabilitation (PR)) between six touchpoints of patient-healthcare interaction (Surgery, Preprosthetic Rehabilitation Admission and Discharge, Functioning Evaluation and Prescription, Prosthetic Rehabilitation Admission and Discharge). The utility of this framework was evaluated through LLRC program implementation in a semiurban US setting and program functioning and process outcomes assessment from an IRB-approved, retrospective observational study about patients with unilateral lower-limb amputations completing this program.Results: Program functional (FIM gain; efficiency) scores were greater for PPR(32.6(8);3.1) compared with PR(24.3(8.5);3.8). Program completion duration was 149.7(63.4) days. LHM(75.8(58.5) days) and PF(51.4(24.3) days) were the longest steps. PR duration was significantly longer(p = 0.033) for the transfemoral level.Conclusion: The LLRC framework is useful for the design and implementation of structured limb loss rehabilitation programs.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe lower limb-loss rehabilitation continuum (LLRC) is a novel implementation framework with a five-step structure from limb loss to completion of prosthetic rehabilitation between six touchpoints of patient-healthcare interaction, with standardized terminology and baseline and outcome metrics. The utility of the program was demonstrated by successful program development in a suburban health setting and actionable process outcomes and superior functioning outcomes compared with literature.The LLRC can be adapted by health systems, institutions, and care providers for program development. Programs can expect high FIM gains and efficiency for Preprosthetic rehabilitation and Prosthetic rehabilitation steps. With an LLRC completion time of 5 months, long Limb healing and maturation and Prosthetic fitting steps present areas of opportunity for improvement.

Clinical development of osseointegrated prostheses / 中华创伤骨科杂志

Osseointegrated prostheses provide a rehabilitation option for amputees. Due to their greater mobility, better satisfaction, and higher use than traditional socket prostheses, they have been employed in transhumeral, transradial, transfemoral, transtibial, and other hand and finger amputations. They are perceived by their users as part of their own body (high embodiment) because they have enhanced motor-sensory capability of the stump. An osseointegrated robotic limb also can be equipped with sensory-motor integration and targeted muscle reinnervation. This article reviews the problems of prosthetic adaptation, the technological development, surgical protocols, complications, and prognosis in osseointegrated prostheses, and discusses their future application and development.

Perceptions of prosthetic attention among lower limb prosthesis users: a focus group study.

PURPOSE: Use of a lower limb prosthesis generally requires increased cognitive effort to compensate for missing motor and sensory inputs. This study sought to examine how lower limb prosthesis users perceive paying attention to their prosthesis(es) in daily life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Focus groups with lower limb prosthesis users were conducted virtually using semi-structured questions. Verbatim transcripts were excerpted, coded, and reconciled. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken to identify experiences shared by participants. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from five focus groups conducted with thirty individuals: Paying attention to my prosthesis is just what I have to do; I pay attention to how my prosthetic socket fits and feels every day; I pay attention because I don't want to fall; I pay attention because I have to learn to do things in a new way; and If I can trust that my prosthesis will do what I want, I can pay less attention to it. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic attention, including both background and foreground attention, is a shared experience among lower limb prosthesis users. The amount and frequency of prosthetic attention fluctuates throughout the day and changes over time. Measuring attention could inform the evaluation and prescription of technology intended to reduce cognitive effort.

Walking or performing mobility tasks with a prosthesis requires increased attention and may limit the cognitive resources available for other important activities.Lower limb prosthesis users report paying attention to their prosthesis(ses) to avoid falling, to maintain the fit of their prosthetic socket, and to learn to complete mobility tasks with a prosthesis.Clinicians should discuss prosthetic attention with new prosthesis users and explain how it is expected to decrease over time.Prosthetic technology may affect prosthetic attention but development of a measure to assess prosthetic attention is needed to accurately evaluate this relationship.

[Motion analysis in lower limb exoprosthetics-possibilities and limitations]. / Die Bewegungsanalyse in der Exoprothetik der unteren Extremität ­ Möglichkeiten und Grenzen.

BACKGROUND: Gait analysis is of high relevance in prosthetics as it is an essential part of the fitting process. The documentation of movement by means of videos and instrumented methods is becoming increasingly important in prosthetics as benefits of a complex prosthesis can best be shown by structured observation. PROCEDURE: A movement analysis should always be preceded by an anamnesis and clinical examination in order to detect functional limitations of the examined person and thus to establish correlations to gait deviations. Additionally, the orthopaedic aid should be evaluated as well. In addition to walking on level ground, walking on everyday obstacles such as stairs and ramps is also of interest when observing people using prosthetic limbs. Functional tests can be used to determine the functional status more comprehensively. An instrumental-3D gait analysis is indicated for specific questions, especially regarding kinetic parameters.

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.

Adults with lower-limb amputation: Reduced multifidi muscle activity and extensor muscle endurance is associated with worse physical performance.

Trunk muscles may be an overlooked region of deficits following lower-limb amputation (LLA). This study sought to determine the extent that trunk muscle deficits are associated with physical function following amputation. Sedentary adults with a unilateral transtibial- (n = 25) or transfemoral-level (n = 14) amputation were recruited for this cross-sectional research study. Participants underwent a clinical examination that included ultrasound imaging of the lumbar multifidi muscles, the modified Biering-Sorensen Endurance Test (mBSET), and performance-based measures, that is, the Timed Up and Go (TUG), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and 10-m Walk Test (10mWT). Associations between trunk muscle metrics and performance were explored with regression modeling, while considering covariates known to impact performance postamputation (p ≤ 0.100). Average ultrasound-obtained, lumbar multifidi activity was 14% and 16% for transfemoral- and transtibial-level amputations, respectively, while extensor endurance was 37.34 and 12.61 s, respectively. For TUG, nonamputated-side multifidi activity and an interaction term (level x non-amputated-side multifidi activity) explained 9.4% and 6.2% of the total variance, respectively. For 10mWT, beyond covariates, non-amputated-side multifidi activity and the interaction term explained 6.1% and 5.8% of the total variance, respectively. For TUG, extensor endurance and an interaction term (level x mBSET) explained 11.9% and 8.3% of the total variance beyond covariates; for BBS and 10mWT, extensor endurance explained 11.2% and 17.2% of the total variance, respectively. Findings highlight deficits in lumbar multifidi activity and extensor muscle endurance among sedentary adults with a LLA; reduced muscle activity and endurance may be important factors to target during rehabilitation to enhance mobility-related outcomes.

Next-generation devices to diagnose residuum health of individuals suffering from limb loss: A narrative review of trends, opportunities, and challenges.

OBJECTIVES: There is a need for diagnostic devices that can assist prosthetic care providers to better assess and maintain residuum health of individuals suffering from neuromusculoskeletal dysfunctions associated with limb loss. This paper outlines the trends, opportunities, and challenges that will facilitate the development of next-generation diagnostic devices. DESIGN: Narrative literature review. METHODS: Information about technologies suitable for integration into next-generation diagnostic devices was extracted from 41 references. We considered the invasiveness, comprehensiveness, and practicality of each technology subjectively. RESULTS: This review highlighted a trend toward future diagnostic devices of neuromusculoskeletal dysfunctions of the residuum capable to support evidence-based patient-specific prosthetic care, patient empowerment, and the development of bionic solutions. This device should positively disrupt the organization healthcare by enabling cost-utility analyses (e.g., fee-for-device business models) and addressing healthcare gaps due to labor shortages. There are opportunities to develop wireless, wearable and noninvasive diagnostic devices integrating wireless biosensors to measure change in mechanical constraints and topography of residuum tissues during real-life conditions as well as computational modeling using medical imaging and finite element analysis (e.g., digital twin). Developing the next-generation diagnostic devices will require to overcome critical barriers associated with the design (e.g., gaps between technology readiness levels of essential parts), clinical roll-out (e.g., identification of primary users), and commercialization (e.g., limited interest from investors). CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that next-generation diagnostic devices will contribute to prosthetic care innovations that will safely increase mobility, thereby improving the quality of life of the growing global population of individuals suffering from limb loss.

Instrumentos de avaliação do ajuste psicossocial à amputação, uso e satisfação com a prótese: uma revisão sistemática da literatura / Instruments for evaluation of psychosocial adjustment to amputation, use and satisfaction with the prosthesis: a systematic review of literature

O ajuste à amputação envolve tanto questões físicas quanto psicossociais e a satisfação com o membro artificial. Objetivo: Revisar sistematicamente a literatura acerca dos instrumentos que avaliam o ajuste psicossocial à amputação e uso da prótese e a satisfação com a prótese em pessoas com amputação de membro inferior. Métodos: Fonte de dados: Medline via Pubmed, Web of Science e Scopus. Critérios de elegibilidade: estudos originais que utilizaram questionários para avaliar o ajustamento psicossocial a amputação e uso da prótese e a satisfação com a prótese. Participantes: pessoas com amputação de membro inferior. Métodos de avaliação e síntese dos estudos: todas as análises foram realizadas por três avaliadores, de forma independente, sendo os resultados apresentados de forma descritiva, em tabelas. Resultados: Foram encontrados 239 artigos na busca inicial, sendo incluídos 12 artigos ao final da revisão. Nestes, foram identificados 14 questionários que avaliam o ajuste psicossocial e a satisfação com a prótese, porém, somente 5 são validados especificamente para a população amputada. Conclusão: A Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scale (TAPES) e o Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) são os instrumentos mais utilizados, sendo sempre importante uma seleção criteriosa dos instrumentos a serem utilizados nas pesquisas e intervenções a fim de se obter dados válidos, confiáveis e comparáveis. Número de registro da revisão sistemática: CRD42019097279

The adjustment to amputation involves physical and psychosocial issues and the satisfaction with the artificial limb. Objective: To systematically review the literature about the instruments that assess psychosocial adjustment to amputation and use of the prosthesis and satisfaction with the prosthesis in people with lower limb amputation. Methods: Data sources: Medline via Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus. Study eligibility criteria: Original studies that using questionnaires to evaluated the psychosocial adjustment to amputation and prosthesis use and about prosthesis satisfaction. Participants: people with lower limb amputation. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: all analyzes were performed independently by three evaluators, and the results were presented descriptively, in tables. Results: Were found 239 articles in the initial search, with 12 articles included at the end of the review. In these, 16 questionnaires were identified that assess the psychosocial adjustment and satisfaction with the prosthesis, however, only five are validated specifically for the amputated population. Conclusion: The Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scale (TAPES) and the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) are the most used instruments, being always important to carefully select the instruments to be used in research and interventions in order to obtain valid, reliable and comparable data. Systematic review registration number: CRD42019097279

Prevalence of secondary prosthesis use in lower limb prosthesis users.

PURPOSE: Prostheses designed for daily use are often inappropriate for high-level activities and/or are susceptible to water damage and mechanical failure. Secondary prostheses, such as activity-specific or back-up prostheses, are typically required to facilitate uninterrupted participation in desired life pursuits. This study estimated the prevalence of secondary prosthesis use in a large, national sample of lower limb prosthesis users (LLPUs). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of survey data from three cross-sectional studies that assessed mobility in LLPUs. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the percentage of secondary prosthesis users and percentages of LLPUs that used different type(s) of secondary prosthesis(es). Secondary prosthesis users and non-users were compared to identify differences in participant characteristics between groups. RESULTS: Of participants in the analysis (n = 1566), most (65.8%) did not use a secondary prosthesis. The most common secondary prosthesis types were back-up (19.2%) and activity-specific prostheses (13.5%). Secondary prosthesis users differed significantly from non-users with respect to gender, race, and other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that secondary prosthesis use for most LLPUs is limited and may differ based on users' demographic and clinical characteristics. Future research should determine how LLPUs' health-related quality-of-life outcomes are affected by access to and use of secondary prostheses.Implications for RehabilitationSecondary prostheses, including activity-specific, back-up, and shower prostheses, have the potential to improve function, mobility, and participation for people who use lower limb prostheses.Most lower limb prosthesis users do not use secondary prostheses, and access to these devices may be related to users' demographic and clinical characteristics.Rehabilitation professionals play a key role in facilitating prosthesis users' access to secondary prostheses and should advocate for those who need them.

The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise?

BACKGROUND: Multi-grip myoelectric hand prostheses (MHPs), with five movable and jointed fingers, have been developed to increase functionality. However, literature comparing MHPs with standard myoelectric hand prostheses (SHPs) is limited and inconclusive. To establish whether MHPs increase functionality, we compared MHPs with SHPs on all categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-model (ICF-model). METHODS: MHP users (N = 14, 64.3% male, mean age = 48.6 years) performed physical measurements (i.e., Refined Clothespin Relocation Test (RCRT), Tray-test, Box and Blocks Test, Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure) with their MHP and an SHP to compare the joint angle coordination and functionality related to the ICF-categories 'Body Function' and 'Activities' (within-group comparisons). SHP users (N = 19, 68.4% male, mean age = 58.1 years) and MHP users completed questionnaires/scales (i.e., Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey-The Upper Extremity Functional Status Survey /OPUS-UEFS, Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales for upper extremity/TAPES-Upper, Research and Development-36/RAND-36, EQ-5D-5L, visual analogue scale/VAS, the Dutch version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology/D-Quest, patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses/PUF-ULP) to compare user experiences and quality of life in the ICF-categories 'Activities', 'Participation', and 'Environmental Factors' (between-group comparisons). RESULTS: 'Body Function' and 'Activities': nearly all users of MHPs had similar joint angle coordination patterns with an MHP as when they used an SHP. The RCRT in the upward direction was performed slower in the MHP condition compared to the SHP condition. No other differences in functionality were found. 'Participation': MHP users had a lower EQ-5D-5L utility score; experienced more pain or limitations due to pain (i.e., measured with the RAND-36). 'Environmental Factors': MHPs scored better than SHPs on the VAS-item holding/shaking hands. The SHP scored better than the MHP on five VAS-items (i.e., noise, grip force, vulnerability, putting clothes on, physical effort to control) and the PUF-ULP. CONCLUSION: MHPs did not show relevant differences in outcomes compared to SHPs on any of the ICF-categories. This underlines the importance of carefully considering whether the MHP is the most suitable option for an individual taking into account the additional costs of MHPs.

Economic evaluation of upper limb prostheses in the Netherlands including the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip versus standard myoelectric hand prostheses.

PURPOSE: To investigate the costs, quality of life, and user experiences associated with upper limb prosthesis use, and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip compared to standard myoelectric hand prostheses (MHPs/SHPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EQ-5D-5L to assess the quality of life, the patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prosthesis (PUF-ULP), and a cost questionnaire (societal perspective) were completed by 242 prosthesis users (57% men; mean age = 58 years). Incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICUR/ICER) with respectively the EQ-5D-5L and PUF-ULP were calculated to compare MHPs with SHPs. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. Netherlands Trial Registry number: NL7682. RESULTS: The mean yearly total costs related to prosthesis use of MHPs (€54 112) and SHPs (€23 501) were higher compared to prostheses with tools/accessories (€11 977), body-powered (€11 298), and cosmetic/passive prostheses (€10 132). EQ-5D-5L and PUF-ULP scores did not differ between prosthesis types. ICUR was €-728 833 per quality-adjusted life year; ICER was €-187 798 per PUF-ULP point gained. CONCLUSIONS: Myoelectric prostheses, especially MHPs, were most expensive compared to other prostheses, while no differences in quality of life and user experiences were apparent. MHPs were not cost-effective compared to SHPs. When prescribing MHPs, careful consideration of advantages over SHPs is recommended.

Myoelectric upper limb prostheses, especially the multi-grip hands, were more expensive than all other types of upper limb prostheses.Health-related quality of life and user experiences were comparable in users of different types of upper limb prostheses.Acquisition costs mainly explained the differences in costs related to upper limb prosthesis use.Prescription of multi-grip hand prostheses should be considered carefully, since these are not cost-effective compared to standard myoelectric hand prostheses.

Prosthetic rehabilitation in a bilateral lower limb pediatric amputee: Case report.

CASE DESCRIPTION: A 2-month-old child required a bilateral limb amputation, right transtibial, and left transfemoral after a deep burn compromising one-third of the body surface area. Traumatic amputations of lower limbs at such an early age are uncommon and underreported in the literature, especially in middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term follow-up of the prosthetization process after traumatic bilateral amputation of a 2-month-old patient. TREATMENT: The process started with compensatory prostheses for independent sitting, followed by exoskeletal devices with SACH feet, and finally introduced dynamic feet and knee to achieve progressively independent gait. OUTCOMES: The patient achieved functionality, autonomy, and social interaction for his age. The habilitation process continues to improve his independent gait and support upcoming life changes. CONCLUSION: Through a multidisciplinary approach, family support, and timely changes of device components according to the child's development, this patient has been able to achieve a normal life.

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.

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.

Comparison of Ischial Containment and Subischial Sockets Effect on Gait Biomechanics in People With Transfemoral Amputation: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gait biomechanics of the Northwestern University Flexible Sub-Ischial Vacuum (NU-FlexSIV) Socket to the ischial containment (IC) socket. DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial with 2, 7-week periods. SETTING: Private prosthetic clinics and university research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 30 enrolled (n=30); 25 participants completed the study with full (n=18) or partial data (n=7). INTERVENTIONS: Two custom-fabricated sockets (IC and NU-FlexSIV), worn full-time for 7 weeks, with testing at 1, 4, and 7 weeks after socket delivery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gait analyses were conducted at 1, 4, and 7 weeks post socket delivery. Differences between sockets in selected gait variables related to hip motion and coronal plane socket stability were assessed. RESULTS: For participants with data for both sockets at week 7 (n=19), there were no significant differences in any gait variables between sockets at self-selected normal walking speed. However, when all participants and all study time points were assessed (n=25), there was a significant main effect of socket (P=.013), with prosthetic side sagittal plane hip range of motion being significantly greater for the NU-FlexSIV Socket at self-selected normal walking speed. There were no other significant effects. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that, compared to the IC socket, the NU-FlexSIV Socket did not alter gait biomechanics related to hip motion and coronal plane socket stability in people with unilateral transfemoral amputation.

Intrinsic somatosensory feedback supports motor control and learning to operate artificial body parts.

Objective.Considerable resources are being invested to enhance the control and usability of artificial limbs through the delivery of unnatural forms of somatosensory feedback. Here, we investigated whether intrinsic somatosensory information from the body part(s) remotely controlling an artificial limb can be leveraged by the motor system to support control and skill learning.Approach.We used local anaesthetic to attenuate somatosensory inputs to the big toes while participants learned to operate through pressure sensors a toe-controlled and hand-worn robotic extra finger. Motor learning outcomes were compared against a control group who received sham anaesthetic and quantified in three different task scenarios: while operating in isolation from, in synchronous coordination, and collaboration with, the biological fingers.Main results.Both groups were able to learn to operate the robotic extra finger, presumably due to abundance of visual feedback and other relevant sensory cues. Importantly, the availability of displaced somatosensory cues from the distal bodily controllers facilitated the acquisition of isolated robotic finger movements, the retention and transfer of synchronous hand-robot coordination skills, and performance under cognitive load. Motor performance was not impaired by toes anaesthesia when tasks involved close collaboration with the biological fingers, indicating that the motor system can close the sensory feedback gap by dynamically integrating task-intrinsic somatosensory signals from multiple, and even distal, body-parts.Significance.Together, our findings demonstrate that there are multiple natural avenues to provide intrinsic surrogate somatosensory information to support motor control of an artificial body part, beyond artificial stimulation.