Background:The literature comparing bone-anchored prosthesis (BAP) with socket prosthesis (SP) consistently reports improvement in physical health and quality of life using primarily patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).Objective:To determine the differences in mobility and balance using performance-based outcome measures and PROMs in people with transfemoral amputations (TFAs) fitted with BAP vs. SP.Study design:Causal comparative.Methods:Two groups of people with TFAs were recruited: one using a BAP (N = 11; mean age ± standard deviation, 44 ± 14.9 years; mean residual limb length as a percentage of the intact femur, 68% ± 15.9) and another group using a SP (N = 11; mean age ± standard deviation, 49.6 ± 16.0 years; mean residual limb length as a percentage of the intact femur, 81% ± 13.9), and completed the 10-meter walk test, component timed-up-and-go, Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility™ 12-item, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale.Results:There were no statistically significant differences between the BAP and SP groups in temporal spatial gait parameters and prosthetic mobility as measured by the 10-meter walk test and component timed-up-and-go, yet large effect sizes were found for several variables. In addition, Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale and Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility™ scores were not statistically different between the BAP and SP groups, yet a large effect sizes were found for both variables.Conclusions:This study found that people with TFA who use a BAP can demonstrate similar temporal spatial gait parameters and prosthetic mobility, as well as self-perceived balance confidence and prosthetic mobility as SP users. Therefore, suggesting that the osseointegration reconstruction surgical procedure provides an alternative option for a specific population with TFA who cannot wear nor have limitations with a SP. Future research with a larger sample and other performance-based outcome measures and PROMs of prosthetic mobility and balance would further determine the differences between the prosthetic options.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Prosthetics and Orthotics International|
|State||Published - Apr 1 2023|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
The authors thank Marco Calcagno, CPO, and Brittany Stresing, CPO, FAAOP, of Limbionics, Raleigh, NC, for their participation in this research study. The authors also thank the Amputee Coalition and the members who participated in this research. The authors also acknowledge the support of the staff at the University of Miami Department of Physical Therapy, Bruce W. Carter Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Osseointegration Group of Australia, and The Geneva Foundation.
© 2023 SAGE Publications Inc.. All rights reserved.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Professions (miscellaneous)