Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: Assessing prosthesis-related quality of life

Legro, Marcia W.; Reiber, Gayle D.; Smith, Douglas G.; Aguila, Michael del; Larsen, Jerrie; Boone, David A.

doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90090-9

Cited by 422 publications

(386 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

356

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The causes of amputations were as follows: highenergy land mine explosion (12), close gunshot injury (3) in the bilateral group, and high-energy land mine explosion (14) and close gun shot injury (1) in the unilateral group. The groups were similar in this regard (p > 0.05).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life and functionality after lower limb amputations

Akarsu¹,

Tekin²,

Safaz

et al. 2013

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It is difficult for the lower limb amputee patients to adapt to their new lifestyles. Objective: To compare the life quality and functionality of patients with bilateral vs. unilateral lower extremity amputations. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Fifteen bilateral and 15 unilateral lower extremity amputee patients were enrolled. Demographics, cause and level of amputations, frequency and duration of prosthesis use were evaluated. SF-36, Satisfaction with Prosthesis Questionnaire (SAT-PRO), Amputee Body Image Scale. (ABIS), Houghton Scale (HS), six-minute walk test (6MWT), and 10-metre walk test (10 MWT) were performed. Results: Physical function, physical and emotional role scores of SF-36 were significantly lower in the bilateral amputee group in comparison with the unilateral group. SAT-PRO and ABIS total scores were similar between the groups. There was a positive correlation between the frequency of prosthetic use and SF-36 subgroups (except pain). The unilateral amputee group had significantly better scores than the bilateral amputee group in terms of HS, 6MWT and 10 MWT. Conclusion: Physical capacity of bilateral lower extremity amputee patients is lower than the unilateral amputee patients; satisfaction with prosthesis and body image are not related with the amputation level; and the life quality and satisfaction with prostheses are increased in parallel with the use of the prostheses. Clinical relevanceAlthough differences exist between the groups, in terms of quality of life and functionality, patients can reach an acceptable life standard with good rehabilitation and a suitable prosthesis.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life and functionality after lower limb amputations

Akarsu¹,

Tekin²,

Safaz

et al. 2013

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The significance of patient input into the prescription, component/knee selection, and fabrication of a prosthesis and its influence on successful outcomes is well recognized [1][2][3]. Boone and Coleman state that "even with optimal biomechanical action, the user could have [a] very strong negative reaction due to other matters of importance to them" [3, p. P68].…”

Section: Perceived Performance and Knee Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first method is to use a population-specific, validated, and reliable instrument. The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) evaluates (1) prosthesis function and (2) prosthesis-related quality of life and is population specific as well as valid and reliable [2]. The second method to consider is directly asking participants their component preference.…”

Section: Perceived Performance and Knee Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They were administered in the following order: (1) PEQ [2], (2) self-reported number of falls, (3) self-reported number of stumbles, (4) 75 m SSWS on even terrain [22][23], (5) 75 m FPWS on even terrain [22][23][24][25], (6) 38 m FPWS on uneven terrain [22][23][24][25], (7) 6 m FPWS on even terrain [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], (8) stair descent test (MRPP) [21], and (9) knee preference [1].…”

Section: Evaluative Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We chose this outcome measure based on the assumption that even if observable differences were found between the C-Leg and NMKM, subjects may still reject a component for nonperformance issues, e.g., lack of perceived improvement. The PEQ has been determined to be reliable and valid with lower-limb amputees [2].…”

Section: Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference

Kahle

Highsmith²,

Hubbard³

2008

JRRD

188

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This study compared subjects' performance with a nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism (NMKM) versus a C-Leg on nine clinically repeatable evaluative measures. We recorded data on subjects' performance while they used an accommodated NMKM and, following a 90-day accommodation period, the C-Leg in a convenience sample of 19 transfemoral (TF) amputees (mean age 51 +/-19) from an outpatient prosthetic clinic. We found that use of the C-Leg improved function in all outcomes: (1) Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire scores increased 20% (p = 0.007), (2) stumbles decreased 59% (p = 0.006), (3) falls decreased 64% (p = 0.03), (4) 75 m selfselected walking speed on even terrain improved 15% (p = 0.03), (5) 75 m fastest possible walking speed (FPWS) on even terrain improved 12% (p = 0.005), (6) 38 m FPWS on uneven terrain improved 21% (p < 0.001), (7) 6 m FPWS on even terrain improved 17% (p = 0.001), (8) Montreal Rehabilitation Performance Profile Performance Composite Scores for stair descent increased for 12 subjects, and (9) the C-Leg was preferred over the NMKM by 14 subjects. Four limited community ambulators (Medicare Functional Classification Level [MFCL] K2) increased their ambulatory functional level to unlimited community ambulation (MFCL K3). Objective evaluative clinical measures are vital for justifying the medical necessity of knee mechanisms for TF amputees. Use of the C-Leg improves performance and quality of life and can increase MFCL and community ambulation level.

show abstract

A Prospective Assessment of an Adjustable, Immediate Fit, Transtibial Prosthesis

Dillingham

Kenia

Shofer

et al. 2019

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There exists a need for an adjustable socket to accommodate residual limb volume and shape changes. Further, limb loss rates globally are rising and there is a large unmet need for affordable and accessible prosthetic systems. Objective To assess the utility of an immediate fit modular prosthetic system (iFIT Prosthetics, LLC). Design Prospective feasibility study involving a 2‐week single‐group pre‐post intervention study. Setting Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation gait laboratory. Participants Participants were at least 6 months post amputation and walking with a conventional prosthesis. They were free of skin wounds, other neurological disorders, and severe pain conditions. Methods Participants were fit with an immediate fit prosthesis and instructed to wear it for a 2‐week evaluation period. They were given a progressive wearing schedule and they completed outcome measurements at the 2‐week follow‐up. Main Outcome Measurements Self‐reported satisfaction, gait biomechanics, and intrasocket peak pressures. Results Twenty‐six participants entered the study, with 22 completing the single group pre‐post study. They averaged 50 years (SD ±10.2) of age; four were female. Sixteen were dysvascular and 10 were traumatic in etiology. Significant differences (P = .03) in self‐reported satisfaction were found in favor of the iFIT device 29.33 (SD ± 4.51) versus the conventional device 25.52 (SD ± 6.8). No falls or limb ischemia were reported. Gait biomechanics revealed no differences across any temporal characteristics. Intrasocket peak pressures were significantly lower for the iFIT prostheses overall (P = .0014), at the anterior tibia (P = .0002), and the lateral side of the residual limb (P = .013). Conclusions The iFIT transtibial prosthetic system appears to be safe in this short‐term single‐group pre‐post study. This study provided preliminary evidence to support the feasibility of the iFIT system. It compared favorably to participants' conventional prostheses across all outcome measures. With its cost, adjustability, and accessibility advantages, this device may prove useful for persons with transtibial amputations. A larger multicenter study is needed to confirm these results. Level of Evidence III

show abstract

Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: Assessing prosthesis-related quality of life

Cited by 422 publications

References 18 publications

Quality of life and functionality after lower limb amputations

Quality of life and functionality after lower limb amputations

Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference

A Prospective Assessment of an Adjustable, Immediate Fit, Transtibial Prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About