Amputation and prosthetics of the lower extremity: The 2020 Dutch evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline.

BACKGROUND: Lower-limb amputations are rare but debilitating events in the lives of affected persons. Treatment of persons with amputation inherently involves many different health care professions at different stages leading to and after an amputation. There are prevailing clinical questions within the work field related to different facets of care including peri/postoperative aspects, prosthetic components, rehabilitation treatment, and health care processes. OBJECTIVES: To provide an up-to-date multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline for health care professionals involved in the treatment of persons with lower-limb amputation in the Netherlands. METHODS: Identification of key questions in a focus group, systematic review of the evidence (up to March 2019, using Embase and MEDLINE databases), and weighing considerations, culminating in clinical recommendations. RESULTS: Twelve key questions were formulated. Recommendations of two key questions were upheld in line with the previous 2012 guideline. Ten systematic literature searches were performed, leading to the inclusion of 59 studies. CONCLUSION: A summary of evidence-based conclusions, considerations, and recommendations of the 2020 guideline is presented.

Influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee on quality of life, balance confidence, and measures of mobility: a randomised cross-over trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of a transition from a non-microprocessor controlled to the Rheo Knee(®) II on quality of life, balance confidence and measures of mobility. DESIGN: Randomised crossover trial. SETTING: Research department of a rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS: Persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation (n=10). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were assessed with their own non-microprocessor controlled knee and with the Rheo Knee(®) II. The low-profile Vari-Flex with EVO foot was installed in both knee conditions, followed by eight weeks of acclimatisation. The order in which knees were tested was randomised. MAIN MEASURES: Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire with addendum, Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Timed "up & go" test, Timed up and down stairs test, Hill Assessment Index, Stairs Assessment Index, Standardized Walking Obstacle Course and One Leg Balance test. RESULTS: Significant higher scores were found for the Rheo Knee(®) II on the Residual Limb Health subscale of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire when compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 86.67 [62.21-93.08] and 68.71 [46.15-94.83]; P=0.047) In addition, participants needed significantly more steps to complete an obstacle course when walking with the Rheo Knee(®) II compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 23.50 [19.92-26.25] and 22.17 [19.50-25.75]; P=0.041). On other outcome measures, no significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Transition towards the Rheo Knee(®) II had little effect on the studied outcome measures.