Lower extremity injury and deformity can result from a number of etiologies. Regardless of the underlying cause, the decision to pursue amputation or reconstruction of a lower limb is challenging for both patients and practitioners. This decision is largely dependent on the patient's premorbid health and function, functional goals and preferences, and characteristics and viability of the affected limb. The role of adaptive devices following surgery should never be underestimated. Advances in prostheses and orthoses have provided patients with a wider range of options to consider when deciding between limb reconstruction and amputation. The primary goals of any adaptive device are to improve function, prevent recurrence or ulceration of the defect, and allow for use of conventional footwear and/or clothing. When a lower extremity amputation is indicated, selection of the correct level is of critical importance in order to optimize healing potential and function. Each distinct level has certain inherent prosthetic and orthotic considerations. Likewise, the application of an adaptive device following reconstruction of the lower extremity also has demonstrable benefits and must be tailored to the specific defect and procedure performed. Knowledge of available prosthetic and orthotic options is of considerable importance for the reconstructive surgeon tasked with limb salvage or resurfacing an amputated extremity. This article reviews considerations of various types of lower extremity amputation and reconstruction, and provides a framework for the role of adaptive devices following surgery.
Background
In prior work laboratory-based measures of hip motor function and ankle proprioceptive precision were critical to maintaining unipedal stance and fall/fall-related injury risk. However, the optimal clinical evaluation techniques for predicting these measures are unknown.
Objective
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of common clinical maneuvers in predicting laboratory-based measures of frontal plane hip rate of torque development (HipRTD) and ankle proprioceptive thresholds (AnkPRO) associated with increased fall risk.
Design
Prospective, observational study.
Setting
Biomechanical research laboratory.
Participants
Forty-one older subjects (age 69.1 ± 8.3 years), 25 with varying degrees of diabetic distal symmetric polyneuropathy and 16 without.
Assessments
Clinical hip strength was evaluated by manual muscle testing (MMT) and lateral plank time (LPT), defined as the number seconds the laterally lying subject could lift hips from the support surface. Foot/ankle evaluation included Achilles reflex, and vibratory, proprioceptive, monofilament, and pinprick sensations at the great toe.
Main Outcome Measures
HipRTD, abduction and adduction, using a custom whole-body dynamometer. AnkPRO determined with subjects standing using a foot cradle system and a staircase series of 100 frontal plane rotational stimuli.
Results
Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves revealed that LPT correlated more strongly with HipRTD (r/p = .61/<.001 and .67/<.001, for abductor/adductor, respectively) than did hip abductor MMT (r/p = .31/.044). Subjects with greater vibratory and proprioceptive sensation, and intact Achilles reflexes, monofilament, and pin sensation had more precise AnkPRO. LPT of < 12 seconds yielded a sensitivity/specificity of 91%/80% for identifying HipRTD < .25 (body size in Newton-meters), and vibratory perception of < 8 seconds yielded a sensitivity/specificity of 94%/80% for the identification of AnkPRO > 1.0 degree.
Conclusions
LPT is a more effective measure of HipRTD than MMT. Similarly, clinical vibratory sense and monofilament testing are effective measures of AnkPRO, whereas clinical proprioceptive sense is not.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.