The Duke Orthopaedic Journal

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 1 ( July-June, 2017 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Assessment Measures for Evaluation of Outcomes in Transtibial Amputees resulting from Trauma: A Systematic Review

Rita Baumgartner, Saam Morshed

Citation Information : Baumgartner R, Morshed S. Assessment Measures for Evaluation of Outcomes in Transtibial Amputees resulting from Trauma: A Systematic Review. The Duke Orthop J 2017; 7 (1):23-29.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10017-1077

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction

Amputations secondary to high-energy open fractures and blast, ballistic, and crush injuries to the lower extremity are common challenges faced by military and civilian orthopaedic surgeons. A lack of consensus on domains to be measured and quality of prosthetic rendering pose methodological challenges to researchers and clinicians alike. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to summarize which domains of health, prosthetic fit, and prosthetic alignment are used to describe outcomes for lower extremity amputees secondary to trauma.

Materials and methods

A search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was conducted including the keywords: Amputation, traumatic, transtibial, survey, and metric. Articles were selected based on whether the study assessed clinical outcomes following transtibial amputation following trauma. Experimental and observational comparative studies and case series were included. Study characteristics and results were extracted using standardized data forms. The number of unique measures recorded, the frequency of measure use, and the number outcome measures were validated and were compiled.

Results

Literature search ultimately resulted in 273 articles being included. A conceptual model was constructed to capture and organize the causal and temporal relationships between fit, alignment, and outcome. Of the 68 articles that used questionnaires to assess prosthetic fit, 37 used a questionnaire designed specifically for the study as opposed to a published or validated tool. Four validated tools were commonly used to capture patient satisfaction with a prosthesis: The OPUS, PEQ, TAPES, and the Socket Comfort Fit Score. Prosthetic alignment was assessed in 19 of 273 articles. One article validated the use of an alignment jig for quantification and prescription of prostheses. Totally, 8 of 19 articles assessing alignment used gait analysis and ground reaction forces to capture differences due to alterations in alignment.

Discussion

Choice of an appropriate outcome measure is critical in generating evidence to support treatment decisions for patients undergoing transtibial amputation after trauma. We found a large number of different tools being used across studies, making results difficult to compare. Prosthetic fit and comfort of the residual limb in the socket and the alignment of the socket and the shank of the prosthesis make up the foundation for the proposed conceptual model. In order to distinguish effects attributable to an intervention of interest vs the impact of the quality of the socket fitting, validation of a clinically objective scoring system to assess socket fit is necessary.

Conclusion

A large number of different tools are currently being used across studies to assess outcomes for transtibial amputees resulting from trauma, and there is a need for development and validation of a clinically objective scoring system to assess socket fit.

Baumgartner R, Morshed S. Assessment Measures for Evaluation of Outcomes in Transtibial Amputees resulting from Trauma: A Systematic Review. The Duke Orthop J 2017;7(1):23-29.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Predicting the need for early amputation in ballistic mangled extremity injuries. J Trauma 2009 Apr;66(4 Suppl):S93-S97, discussion S7-S8.
  2. Blast and fragment injuries of the musculoskeletal system. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002 Jul;84-A(7):1221-1234.
  3. Extremity war injuries: development of clinical treatment principles. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007 Oct;15(10):590-595.
  4. Foot and ankle reconstruction after blast injuries. Foot Ankle Clin 2006 Mar;11(1):165-182, x.
  5. Salvage or amputation after complex foot and ankle trauma. Orthop Clin North Am 2001 Jan;32(1):181-186.
  6. Health-care costs associated with amputation or reconstruction of a limb-threatening injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007 Aug;89(8):1685-1692.
  7. Orthopaedic healthcare worldwide: shared medical decision making in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013 May;471(5):1412-1414.
  8. Repeatability of a new obser- vational gait score for unilateral lower limb amputees. Gait Posture 2010 May;32(1):39-45.
  9. Alignment of lower-limb prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev 1986 Apr;23(2):2-19.
  10. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther 2011 Apr;91(4):555-565.
  11. Lower extremity prosthetic mobility: a comparison of 3 self-report scales. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001 Oct;82(10):1432-1440.
  12. Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. J Rehabil Med 2007 Mar;39(2):138-144.
  13. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998 Aug;79(8):931-938.
  14. Prosthetic socket fit comfort score. Disabil Rehabil 2003 Nov 18;25(22):1278-1280.
  15. Development and psychometric evaluation of the trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales (TAPES). Rehabil Psychol 2000;45(2):130-154.
  16. Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: a psychometric assessment using classical test theory and rasch analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010 Jun;89(6):487-496.
  17. A new alignment jig for quantification and prescription of three-dimensional alignment for the patellar-tendon-bearing trans-tibial prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999 Dec;23(3):225-230.
  18. Goal attainment scaling in the rehabilitation of patients with lower-extremity amputations: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002 Jun;83(6):771-775.
  19. Physical activity and quality of life of amputees in southern Brazil. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011 Dec;35(4):432-438.
  20. Body image in people with lower-limb amputation: a Rasch analysis of the Amputee Body Image Scale. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007 Mar;86(3):205-215.
  21. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002 May;83(5):613-627.
  22. Engagement in activities revealing the body and psychosocial adjustment in adults with a trans-tibial prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002 Apr;26(1):15-22.
  23. A post-discharge functional outcome measure for lower limb amputees: test-retest reliability with trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002 Aug;26(2):113-119.
  24. Houghton Scale of prosthetic use in people with lower-extremity amputations: reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004 Aug;85(8):1339-1344.
  25. Rasch analysis of the Locomotor Capabi- lities Index-5 in people with lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007 Dec;31(4):394-404.
  26. The Lower Limb Amputee Measurement Scale: reliability and predictive validity. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007 Sep;31(3): 300-312.
  27. Prosthetic profile of the amputee questionnaire: validity and reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994 Dec;75(12):1309-1314.
  28. The 2-minute walk test as a measure of functional improvement in persons with lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001 Oct;82(10):1478-1483.
  29. Six-minute walk test in persons with transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008 Dec;89(12):2354-2359.
  30. The L test of functional mobility: measurement properties of a modified version of the timed “up & go” test designed for people with lower-limb amputations. Phys Ther 2005 Jul;85(7):626-635.
  31. Validity of the prosthetic activity monitor to assess the duration and spatio-temporal characteristics of prosthetic walking. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2004;12(4):379-386.
  32. Reliability and concurrent validity of the step quick turn test in older persons with a unilateral transtibial amputation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2011 Oct;90(10):798-804.
  33. Psychometric properties of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale among individuals with a lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003 May;84(5):656-661.
  34. Rasch analyses of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale with individuals 50 years and older with lower-limb amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011 Aug;92(8):1257-1263.
  35. The assessment and description of amputee activity. Prosthet Orthot Int 1981 Apr;5(1):23-28.
  36. Is the Rivermead Mobility Index a suitable outcome measure in lower limb amputees? A psychometric validation study. J Rehabil Med 2003 May;35(3):141-144.
  37. Is the Rivermead Mobility Index appropriate to measure mobility in lower limb amputees? Disabil Rehabil 2003 Feb 4;25(3):143-153.
  38. The SIGAM mobility grades: a new population-specific measure for lower limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil 2003 Aug 5;25(15):833-844.
  39. Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) – the best available evidence on limb-threatening lower extremity trauma. Orthop Clin North Am 2010 Apr;41(2):233-239.
  40. A comparison of trans-tibial amputee suction and vacuum socket conditions. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001;25(3):202-209.
  41. Lower-limb amputee needs assessment using multistakeholder focus-group approach. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009;46(3):293-304.
  42. Comparison of satisfaction with current prosthetic care in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts with major traumatic limb loss. J Rehabil Res Dev 2010;47(4):361-371.
  43. Effects of sagittal plane prosthetic alignment on standing trans-tibial amputee knee loads. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999 Dec;23(3):231-238.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.