The development of rating scales to evaluate experiential prosthetic foot preference for people with lower limb amputation
Talia R. Ruxin BA
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorElizabeth G. Halsne PhD, CPO, MS
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBrian J. Hafner PhD
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJane Shofer MS
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAndrew H. Hansen PhD
Minneapolis Adaptive Design & Engineering (MADE) Program, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Departments of Rehabilitation Medicine & Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Search for more papers by this authorW. Lee Childers PhD
Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Houston, Texas, USA
Center for the Intrepid, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJoshua M. Caputo PhD
Human Motion Technologies LLC (Humotech), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
David C. Morgenroth MD
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Correspondence
David C. Morgenroth, VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorTalia R. Ruxin BA
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorElizabeth G. Halsne PhD, CPO, MS
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBrian J. Hafner PhD
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJane Shofer MS
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAndrew H. Hansen PhD
Minneapolis Adaptive Design & Engineering (MADE) Program, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Departments of Rehabilitation Medicine & Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Search for more papers by this authorW. Lee Childers PhD
Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Houston, Texas, USA
Center for the Intrepid, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJoshua M. Caputo PhD
Human Motion Technologies LLC (Humotech), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
David C. Morgenroth MD
VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Correspondence
David C. Morgenroth, VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Background
Selection 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.
Objective
To 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.
Design
Participant-blinded, repeated measures crossover trial.
Setting
Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Medical Centers, laboratory setting.
Participants
Seventy-two male prosthesis users with unilateral transtibial amputation started, and 68 participants completed this study.
Interventions
Participants 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.
Results
The 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.
Conclusions
The 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.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| pmrj13024-sup-0001-AppendixS1.pdfPDF document, 37.1 KB | Appendix S1. Supporting Information. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Stevens PM, Rheinstein J, Wurdeman SR. Prosthetic foot selection for individuals with lower-limb amputation: a clinical practice guideline. J Prosthet Orthot. 2018; 30(4): 175-180. doi:10.1097/JPO.0000000000000181
- 2van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, Geurts ACH, Postema K, Geertzen JHB, van Limbeek J. A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004; 41(4): 555-570. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2003.06.0102
- 3Johnston P, Currie LM, Drynan D, Stainton T, Jongbloed L. Getting it “right”: how collaborative relationships between people with disabilities and professionals can lead to the acquisition of needed assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014; 9(5): 421-431. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.900574
- 4Clites TR, Shepherd MK, Ingraham KA, Rouse EJ. Patient preference in the selection of prosthetic joint stiffness. In: 2020 8th IEEE RAS/EMBS international conference for biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (BioRob). 2020. doi:10.1109/BioRob49111.2020.9224405
- 5Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, Maclachlan M, Ryall N. Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users. Disabil Rehabil. 2011; 33(15–16): 1314-1323. doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.529234
- 6Shepherd MK, Simon AM, Zisk J, Hargrove LJ. Patient-preferred prosthetic ankle-foot alignment for ramps and level-ground walking. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021; 29: 52-59. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.3033711
- 7Halsne EG, Curran C, Caputo JM, Hansen A, Hafner BJ. Morgenroth D. Emulating the effective ankle stiffness of commercial prosthetic feet using a robotic prosthetic foot emulator. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2022; 144(11):111009. doi:10.1115/1.4054834
- 8Morgenroth DC. A multi-site randomized, cross-over study of a “test-drive” strategy for prosthetic foot prescription. Presented at: American Academy of Orthotics and Prosthetics; March 3, 2022; Atlanta, Georgia.
- 9Caputo JM, Dvorak E, Shipley K, Miknevich MA, Adamczyk PG, Collins SH. Robotic emulation of candidate prosthetic foot designs may enable efficient, evidence-based, and individualized prescriptions. J Prosthetics Orthotics. 2022; 10: 202-212. doi:10.1097/JPO.0000000000000409
10.1097/JPO.0000000000000409 Google Scholar
- 10Hafner BJ. Perceptive evaluation of prosthetic foot and ankle systems. J Prosthetics Orthotics. 2005; 17: S42-S46.
10.1097/00008526-200510001-00015 Google Scholar
- 11McMulkin ML, Osebold WR, Mildes RD, Rosenquist RS. Comparison of three pediatric prosthetic feet during functional activities. J Prosthetics Orthotics. 2004; 16(3): 78-84.
10.1097/00008526-200407000-00004 Google Scholar
- 12Zmitrewicz RJ, Neptune RR, Walden JG, Rogers WE, Bosker GW. The effect of foot and ankle prosthetic components on braking and propulsive impulses during transtibial amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87(10): 1334-1339. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.06.013
- 13Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al. Differences in military obstacle course performance between three energy-storing and shock-adapting prosthetic feet in high-functioning transtibial amputees: a double-blind, randomized control trial. Mil Med. 2016; 181(S4): 45-54. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00286
- 14Kaluf B, Duncan A, Bridges W. Comparative effectiveness of microprocessor-controlled and carbon-fiber energy-storing-and-returning prosthetic feet in persons with unilateral transtibial amputation: patient-reported outcome measures. J Prosthetics Orthotics. 2020; 32(4): 214-221. doi:10.1097/JPO.0000000000000288
10.1097/JPO.0000000000000288 Google Scholar
- 15Hahn A, Sreckovic I, Reiter S, Mileusnic M. First results concerning the safety, walking, and satisfaction with an innovative, microprocessor-controlled four-axes prosthetic foot. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42(3): 350-356. doi:10.1177/0309364617747976
- 16Morgan SJ, McDonald CL, Halsne EG, et al. Laboratory- and community-based health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation using crossover and energy-storing prosthetic feet: a randomized crossover trial. PLoS One. 2018; 13(2):e0189652. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189652
- 17Burger H, Vidmar G, Zdovc B, Erzar D, Zalar M. Comparison between three types of prosthetic feet: a randomized double-blind single-subject multiple-rater trial. Int J Rehabil Res. 2018; 41(2): 173-179. doi:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000286
- 18Kim J, Wensman J, Colabianchi N, Gates DH. The influence of powered prostheses on user perspectives, metabolics, and activity: a randomized crossover trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021; 18(1): 49. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00842-2
- 19Wurdeman SR, Myers SA, Jacobsen AL, Stergiou N. Prosthesis preference is related to stride-to-stride fluctuations at the prosthetic ankle. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013; 50(5): 671-686. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2012.06.0104
- 20Ferris AE, Aldridge JM, Rábago CA, Wilken JM. Evaluation of a powered ankle-foot prosthetic system during walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93(11): 1911-1918. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.06.009
- 21Gries K, Berry P, Harrington M, et al. Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures. J Patient-Report Outcomes. 2018; 2(1): 41. doi:10.1186/s41687-018-0056-3
- 22Postema K, Hermens HJ, de Vries J, Koopman HF, Eisma WH. Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet. Part 2: subjective ratings of 2 energy storing and 2 conventional feet, user choice of foot and deciding factor. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997; 21(1): 28-34. doi:10.3109/03093649709164527
- 23vd Water GJ, de Vries J, Mulder MA. Comparison of the lightweight camp normal activity foot with other prosthetic feet in trans-tibial amputees: a pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1998; 22(2): 107-114. doi:10.3109/03093649809164471
- 24Raschke SU, Orendurff MS, Mattie JL, et al. Biomechanical characteristics, patient preference and activity level with different prosthetic feet: a randomized double blind trial with laboratory and community testing. J Biomech. 2015; 48(1): 146-152. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.002
- 25Underwood HA, Tokuno CD, Eng JJ. A comparison of two prosthetic feet on the multi-joint and multi-plane kinetic gait compensations in individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004; 19(6): 609-616. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.02.005
- 26Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998; 79(8): 931-938. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90090-9
- 27Gailey RS, Gaunaurd I, Agrawal V, Finnieston A, O'Toole C, Tolchin R. Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49(4): 597-612. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2011.04.0077
- 28Klute GK, Berge JS, Orendurff MS, Williams RM, Czerniecki JM. Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87(5): 717-722. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.02.007
- 29Legro MW, Reiber GE, Czerniecki JM, Sangeorzan BJ. Recreational activities of lower-limb amputees with prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001; 38(3): 319-325.
- 30Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, Geddes DM. Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res ed). 1982; 284(6329): 1607-1608.
- 31Brooks D, Hunter JP, Parsons J, Livsey E, Quirt J, Devlin M. Reliability of the two-minute walk test in individuals with transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83(11): 1562-1565. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.34600
- 32Reid L, Thomson P, Besemann M, Dudek N. Going places: does the two-minute walk test predict the six-minute walk test in lower extremity amputees? J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47(3): 256-261. doi:10.2340/16501977-1916
- 33Farrar JT, Pritchett YL, Robinson M, Prakash A, Chappell A. The clinical importance of changes in the 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for worst, least, and average pain intensity: analyses of data from clinical trials of duloxetine in pain disorders. J Pain. 2010; 11(2): 109-118. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2009.06.007
- 34Franchignoni F, Ferriero G, Giordano A, Monticone M, Grioni G, Burger H. The minimal clinically-important difference of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire-mobility scale in subjects undergoing lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation training. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020; 56(1): 82-87. doi:10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05799-X
- 35 R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: a language and enviornment for statistical computing. R Core Team; 2020 Accessed June 29, 2022. https://www.r-project.org/
- 36Shepherd MK, Azocar AF, Major MJ, Rouse EJ. Amputee perception of prosthetic ankle stiffness during locomotion. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018; 15(1): 99. doi:10.1186/s12984-018-0432-5
- 37Shepherd MK, Rouse EJ. Comparing preference of ankle–foot stiffness in below-knee amputees and prosthetists. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):16067. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72131-2
- 38Klodd E, Hansen A, Fatone S, Edwards M. Effects of prosthetic foot forefoot flexibility on oxygen cost and subjective preference rankings of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 47(6): 543-552. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2010.01.0003
- 39Klute GK, Kantor C, Darrouzet C, et al. Lower-limb amputee needs assessment using multistakeholder focus-group approach. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009; 46(3): 293-304.
- 40Fogelberg DJ, Allyn KJ, Smersh M, Maitland ME. What people want in a prosthetic foot: a focus group study. J Prosthet Orthot. 2016; 28(4): 145-151. doi:10.1097/JPO.0000000000000102
- 41Schaffalitzky E, NiMhurchadha S, Gallagher P, Hofkamp S, MacLachlan M, Wegener ST. Identifying the values and preferences of prosthetic users: a case study series using the repertory grid technique. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009; 33(2): 157-166. doi:10.1080/03093640902855571
- 42Major MJ, Twiste M, Kenney LPJ, Howard D. The effects of prosthetic ankle stiffness on ankle and knee kinematics, prosthetic limb loading, and net metabolic cost of trans-tibial amputee gait. Clin Biomech. 2014; 29(1): 98-104. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.10.012
- 43Hafner BJ, Halsne EG, Morgan SJ, Morgenroth DC, Humbert AT. Effects of prosthetic feet on metabolic energy expenditure in people with transtibial amputation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PM R. 2022; 14(9): 1099-1115. doi:10.1002/pmrj.12693
