BackgroundMore than fifty percent of people with limb amputations participate in sports or physical activity following amputation. Athletes with limb amputations may face additional challenges including phantom limb pain (PLP), psychological barriers, prosthetic complications, and gait abnormalities. Prevalence of PLP in the general amputee population is estimated to be as high as 85%. Despite the high prevalence of PLP, there is little research regarding the use of gait training as a treatment for PLP among both the general amputee population and athletes. Case DescriptionA 20-year old female collegiate track and field athlete presented with phantom knee pain brought on with running. The athlete demonstrated deficits in core and hip strength as well as decreased single leg stability bilaterally. Running gait analysis revealed circumduction with the prosthesis for limb advancement and increased vaulting with push off on the sound (uninvolved) limb. Gait retraining strategies were implemented to address video analysis findings and create a more efficient running gait and address phantom limb pain symptoms. OutcomesRehabilitation and gait retraining strategies were effective in improving several clinical and functional outcomes in this case. Significant improvements were noted in PLP, running gait mechanics, and the patient's psychological and functional status as measured with a standardized outcome tool, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System ® (PROMIS ® ). DiscussionRunning gait training following amputation could be a crucial component of rehabilitation for athletes in an attempt to lessen pain while running, especially in those experiencing phantom limb pain (PLP). Utilization of a multidisciplinary team in the gait retraining process is recommended. There is a need for further research to determine the effects of running gait retraining for management of PLP in athletes with amputation.

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a validated question establishing if patients activity and symptoms are at a satisfactory low level for pain and function. Surprisingly, ~20% of foot and ankle patients at their initial visit present for care with an acceptable symptom state (i.e. PASS yes). These patients are important to identify to prevent over treatment and avoid excessive cost. It is also unclear what health domains (Pain Interference (PI), Physical Function (PF), or Depression (Dep)) influence a patients judgement of their PASS state (i.e. why they are seeking treatment). The purpose of this analysis is to document the prevalance of PASS state and determine the health domains that discriminate PASS patients and predict PASS state at the initiation of rehabilitation. Methods: Patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) computer adaptive test (CAT) scales PF, pain PIand Dep and PASS ratings starting in summer 2017 were routinely collected for patient care. Of 746 unique patients in this data set, 114 patients had ICD-10 codes that were specific to the foot and ankle. Average age was 51years (±18) and 54.4% were female. Patients were seen an average of 19.8(±15.9) days from their referral and were billed as low (51.7%), moderate (44.7%) and high complexity (2.7%) evaluations per current procedural code (CPT) visits. ANOVA models were used to evaluate differences in PROMIS scales by PASS state (Yes/No). The area under receiver operator curve (AUC) was used to determine the predictive ability of each PROMIS scale to determine a PASS state. Thresholds for near 95% specificity were also calculated for a PASS Yes state for each PROMIS scale. Results: The prevalance of PASS Yes patients was 13.2% (15/114). Pass Yes patients were significantly better by an average of 7.2 to 8.0 points across all PROMIS health domains compared to PASS No patients (Table 1). ROC analysis suggested that Dep (AUC=0.73(0.07) p=0.005) was the highest predictor of PASS status followed by PI (AUC=0.70(0.08) p=0.012) and PF (AUC=0.69(0.07) p=0.18). The threshold PROMIS t-score values for determining PASS Yes with nearest 95% specificity were PF = 51.9, PI = 50.6, and Dep = 34. Conclusion: Surprising, yet consistent with previous data, 13.2% of patients at their initial physical therapy consultation rated themselves at an acceptable level of activity and symptoms. Health domains of physical function, pain interference, and depression were better in these patients and showed moderate ability (AUC~0.7) to identify these patients. The PROMIS thresholds suggest patients are identified by pain and physical function equal to the average of the US population (PROMIS T-Score ~50) and extremely low depression scores (34). Clinically it is important to recognize these patients and purposefully provide treatments that reinforce their self efficacy and prevent unnecessary costly treatments.