Prosthetic Intervention Effects on Activity of Lower-Extremity Amputees

Klute, Glenn K.; Berge, Jocelyn S.; Orendurff, Michael S.; Williams, Rhonda M.; Czerniecki, Joseph M.

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.02.007

Cited by 144 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Individual subjects generally had one to two longer walking bouts each day, usually once in the morning before work and once in the afternoon after work, thought to be associated with walking from their commuting transportation (car or bus) to their work location in the morning and back again in the afternoon. This is consistent with the data of Klute et al, which showed that individuals with transtibial amputation and individuals with transfemoral amputations walked 10 minutes in a row just once a day on average [38]. For this study, subject 3 was the exception and generally twice each day had bouts of walking with more than 2,000 steps in a row before stopping (Figure 4).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Klute et al reported that prosthetic prescription makes no differences in the step count or step rate as recorded by the StepWatch™ Activity Monitor (SAM) (OrthoCare Innovations; Mountlake Terrace, Washington) in transfemoral and transtibial amputees who are community ambulators [38]. However, steps were summed every 1 minute over a 1-week period, leaving some doubt as to the number of sequential steps, bout duration, and rest length of typical walking activities in this patient population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accelerometer-based devices have been used by several authors to assess walking ability over several days or weeks in both household and community ambulation [33][34][35][36][37][38]. Klute et al reported that prosthetic prescription makes no differences in the step count or step rate as recorded by the StepWatch™ Activity Monitor (SAM) (OrthoCare Innovations; Mountlake Terrace, Washington) in transfemoral and transtibial amputees who are community ambulators [38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How humans walk: Bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration

Orendurff¹

2008

JRRD

Self Cite

261

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Much is known about human walking, but it is not known how walking is used during typical activities. Since improving walking ability is a key goal in many surgical, pharmacological, and physiotherapeutic interventions, understanding typical community mobility demands regarding the length of walking bouts, the number of sequential steps frequently performed, and the duration of common nonwalking (rest) behavior seems prudent. This study documents the gait of daily living in 10 nondisabled employed adults to define walking bout duration, sequential step counts, and length of rest periods over a 2-week period. Subjects wore a StepWatch™ Activity Monitor (OrthoCare Innovations; Mountlake Terrace, Washington) that counted steps in each 10-second time window. Custom code summed sequential steps, periods of walking behavior (bouts), and periods without steps (rest). Sixty percent of all walking bouts lasted just 30 seconds or less; a 2-minute walking bout was just 1 percent of total walking bouts. Forty percent of all walking bouts were less than 12 steps in a row, and 75 percent of all walking bouts were less than 40 steps in a row. Rest periods were predominantly very short, with half of all rests periods lasting 20 seconds or less. The community mobility demand for nondisabled employed adults appears to involve frequent short-duration walking behavior with low numbers of sequential steps strung together and many shortduration nonwalking (rest) behaviors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How humans walk: Bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration

Orendurff¹

2008

JRRD

Self Cite

261

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The non-PVD group's average steps were almost twice that of the PVD group and just slightly above the average American's number of steps, again suggesting that the activity level of the non-PVD group was higher than previously published reports. Hours of daily activity reported for the PVD and non-PVD groups were consistent with what has been reported for people with unilateral transtibial amputation with vascular and traumatic lower-limb loss [51]. The question that must be asked is, Would design characteristics actually increase the person's ability to walk more in the course of the day, or is the greater contributor to steps/day motivation, personality, activity level, vocation, or other factors unrelated to the prosthetic foot choice?…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…The average American has been found to take approximately 5,117 steps/day [49]. The participant's steps/day were consistent or higher than what has been reported in previous literature [50][51][52]. The non-PVD group's average steps were almost twice that of the PVD group and just slightly above the average American's number of steps, again suggesting that the activity level of the non-PVD group was higher than previously published reports.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 43%

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

Gailey

Gaunaurd

Agrawal

et al. 2012

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Weand five without PVD, completed testing. Subjects were tested at baseline and after receiving training with their existing prosthesis and with the study socket and four prosthetic feet, i.e., SACH (solid ankle cushion heel), SAFE (stationary attachment flexible endoskeletal), Talux, and Proprio feet, over 8 to 10 weeks. Training was administered between testing sessions. No differences were detected by the PEQ-13, LCI, 6MWT, or SAM following training and after fitting with test feet. The AMPPRO demonstrated differences following training with the existing prosthesis in the PVD group and between selected feet from baseline testing (p

show abstract

The development of rating scales to evaluate experiential prosthetic foot preference for people with lower limb amputation

Ruxin

Halsne

Hafner

et al. 2023

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSelection of a foot is an important aspect of prosthetic prescription and vital to maximizing mobility and functional goals after lower limb amputation. Development of a standardized approach to soliciting user experiential preferences is needed to improve evaluation and comparison of prosthetic feet.ObjectiveTo develop rating scales to assess prosthetic foot preference and to evaluate use of these scales in people with transtibial amputation after trialing different prosthetic feet.DesignParticipant‐blinded, repeated measures crossover trial.SettingVeterans Affairs and Department of Defense Medical Centers, laboratory setting.ParticipantsSeventy‐two male prosthesis users with unilateral transtibial amputation started, and 68 participants completed this study.InterventionsParticipants trialed three mobility‐level appropriate commercial prosthetic feet briefly in the laboratory.Main Outcome Measures“Activity‐specific” rating scales were developed to assess participants' ability with a given prosthetic foot to perform typical mobility activities (eg, walking at different speeds, on inclines, and stairs) and “global” scales to rate overall perceived energy required to walk, satisfaction, and willingness to regularly use the prosthetic foot. Foot preference was determined by comparing the rating scale scores, after laboratory testing.ResultsThe greatest within‐participant differences in scores among feet were observed in the “incline” activity, where 57% ± 6% of participants reported 2+ point differences. There was a significant association (p < .05) between all “activity‐specific” rating scores (except standing) and each “global” rating score.ConclusionsThe standardized rating scales developed in this study could be used to assess prosthetic foot preference in both the research and clinical settings to guide prosthetic foot prescription for people with lower limb amputation capable of a range of mobility levels.

show abstract

Prosthetic Intervention Effects on Activity of Lower-Extremity Amputees

Cited by 144 publications

References 15 publications

How humans walk: Bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration

How humans walk: Bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

The development of rating scales to evaluate experiential prosthetic foot preference for people with lower limb amputation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About