Background: Reliable information on both global need for prosthetic services and the current prosthetist workforce is limited. Global burden of disease estimates can provide valuable insight into amputation prevalence due to traumatic causes and global prosthetists needed to treat traumatic amputations. Objectives: This study was conducted to quantify and interpret patterns in global distribution and prevalence of traumatic limb amputation by cause, region, and age within the context of prosthetic rehabilitation, prosthetist need, and prosthetist education. Study design: A secondary database descriptive study. Methods: Amputation prevalence and prevalence rate per 100,000 due to trauma were estimated using the 2017 global burden of disease results. Global burden of disease estimation utilizes a Bayesian metaregression and best available data to estimate the prevalence of diseases and injuries, such as amputation. Results: In 2017, 57.7 million people were living with limb amputation due to traumatic causes worldwide. Leading traumatic causes of limb amputation were falls (36.2%), road injuries (15.7%), other transportation injuries (11.2%), and mechanical forces (10.4%). The highest number of prevalent traumatic amputations was in East Asia and South Asia followed by Western Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, high-income North America and Eastern Europe. Based on these prevalence estimates, approximately 75,850 prosthetists are needed globally to treat people with traumatic amputations. Conclusion: Amputation prevalence estimates and patterns can inform prosthetic service provision, education and planning.

No abstract

Contemporary prosthetic feet are generally optimized for either daily or high-level activities. Prosthesis users, therefore, often require multiple prostheses to participate in activities that span a range of mobility. Crossover feet (XF) are designed to increase the range of activities that can be performed with a single prosthesis. However, little evidence exists to guide clinical prescription of XF relative to traditional energy storing feet (ESF). The objective of this study was to assess the effects of XF and ESF on health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation. A randomized crossover study was conducted to assess changes in laboratory-based (endurance, perceived exertion, walking performance) and community-based (step activity and self-reported mobility, fatigue, balance confidence, activity restrictions, and satisfaction) outcomes. Twenty-seven participants were fit with XF and ESF prostheses with standardized sockets, interfaces, and suspensions. Participants were not blinded to the intervention, and wore each prosthesis for one month while their steps were counted with an activity monitor. After each accommodation period, participants returned for data collection. Endurance and perceived exertion were measured with the Six-Minute Walk Test and Borg-CR100, respectively. Walking performance was measured using an electronic walkway. Self-reported mobility, fatigue, balance confidence, activity restrictions, and satisfaction were measured with survey instruments. Participants also reported foot preferences upon conclusion of the study. Differences between feet were assessed with a crossover analysis. While using XF, users experienced improvements in most community-based outcomes, including mobility (p = .001), fatigue (p = .001), balance confidence (p = .005), activity restrictions (p = .002), and functional satisfaction (p < .001). Participants also exhibited longer sound side steps in XF compared to ESF (p < .001). Most participants (89%) reported an overall preference for XF; others (11%) reported no preference. Results indicate that XF may be a promising alternative to ESF for people with transtibial amputation who engage in a range of mobility activities.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02440711

No abstract

Introduction Many different prosthetic feet are available to meet the diverse needs of people with lower-limb amputation. Current methods used to assess comparative effectiveness of prosthetic feet may not align with outcomes that are most important to people with lower-limb amputation. User participation in qualitative research is one approach to guide selection of outcome measures for clinical practice and quantitative research studies. This pilot study examined outcomes of importance to people who have used both energy storing and crossover prosthetic feet. Materials and Methods An in-person focus group of people with lower-limb amputation was conducted. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 18 years of age or older, lower-limb amputation, previous use of an energy storing foot and crossover foot, and a minimum of 1 year prosthesis use. Results Five participants with lower-limb amputation (4 males/1 female), aged 41 to 59 years (mean, 45.6 ± 7.7 years), participated in the focus group. Three participants had unilateral transtibial amputations; one had bilateral transtibial amputations; and another had bilateral involvement with a transtibial and partial-foot amputation. All participants reported daily use of a prosthesis (mean, 15.2 ± 1.1 hours). Three categories of themes arose from this focus group: direct outcomes, external influences, and indirect outcomes. Direct outcomes included balance and stability, endurance and sustained gait quality, and naturalness. External influences included peer and prosthetist interactions. Indirect outcomes included increased confidence and expanded mobility. Outcome measures available to assess identified constructs were suggested. Conclusions Engagement of prosthesis users through qualitative research methods can inform the choice of outcome measures used to assess clinical outcomes or evaluate the effectiveness of prosthetic devices.