Ruud A Leijendekkers1,2, Gerben van Hinte1, Jan Paul Frölke3, Hendrik van de Meent4, Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden1,5, J Bart Staal5,6. 1. a Department of Orthopaedics , Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 2. b Master Clinical Health Sciences, Program in Physical Therapy Science , University Utrecht and University Medical Centre Utrecht , Utrecht , The Netherlands. 3. c Department of Surgery , Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 4. d Department of Rehabilitation , Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 5. e Scientific Centre for Quality of Care, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 6. f Research Group Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, HAN University of Applied Sciences , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to provide an overview of a) the used measurement instruments in studies evaluating effects on quality of life (QoL), function, activity and participation level in patients with a lower extremity amputation using bone-anchored prostheses compared to socket prostheses and b) the effects themselves. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Included studies compared QoL, function, activity and/or participation level in patients with bone-anchored or socket prostheses. A best-evidence synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Out of 226 studies, five cohort and two cross-sectional studies were eligible for inclusion, all had methodological shortcomings. These studies used 10 different measurement instruments and two separate questions to assess outcome. Bone-anchored prostheses were associated with better condition-specific QoL and better outcomes on several of the physical QoL subscales, outcomes on the physical bodily pain subscale were inconclusive. Outcomes on function and activity level increased, no change was found at participation level. The level of evidence was limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a standard set of instruments. There was limited evidence that bone-anchored prostheses resulted in higher QoL, function and activity levels than socket prostheses, in patients with socket-related problems. Implications for Rehabilitation Use of bone-anchored prostheses in combination with intensive outpatient rehabilitation may improve QoL, function and activity level compared with socket prosthesis use in patients with a transfemoral amputation and socket-related problems. All clinicians and researchers involved with bone-anchored prostheses should use and publish data on QoL, function, activity and participation level. There needs to be an agreement on a standard set of instruments so that interventions for patients with a lower extremity amputation are assessed consistently.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to provide an overview of a) the used measurement instruments in studies evaluating effects on quality of life (QoL), function, activity and participation level in patients with a lower extremity amputation using bone-anchored prostheses compared to socket prostheses and b) the effects themselves. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Included studies compared QoL, function, activity and/or participation level in patients with bone-anchored or socket prostheses. A best-evidence synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Out of 226 studies, five cohort and two cross-sectional studies were eligible for inclusion, all had methodological shortcomings. These studies used 10 different measurement instruments and two separate questions to assess outcome. Bone-anchored prostheses were associated with better condition-specific QoL and better outcomes on several of the physical QoL subscales, outcomes on the physical bodily pain subscale were inconclusive. Outcomes on function and activity level increased, no change was found at participation level. The level of evidence was limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a standard set of instruments. There was limited evidence that bone-anchored prostheses resulted in higher QoL, function and activity levels than socket prostheses, in patients with socket-related problems. Implications for Rehabilitation Use of bone-anchored prostheses in combination with intensive outpatient rehabilitation may improve QoL, function and activity level compared with socket prosthesis use in patients with a transfemoral amputation and socket-related problems. All clinicians and researchers involved with bone-anchored prostheses should use and publish data on QoL, function, activity and participation level. There needs to be an agreement on a standard set of instruments so that interventions for patients with a lower extremity amputation are assessed consistently.
Entities:
Keywords:
Functional outcome; lower extremity amputation; osseointegration; quality of life
Authors: Jamal Mohamed; David Reetz; Henk van de Meent; Hendrik Schreuder; Jan Paul Frölke; Ruud Leijendekkers Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Carolyn E Taylor; Yue Zhang; Yuqing Qiu; Heath B Henninger; K Bo Foreman; Kent N Bachus Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Ruud A Leijendekkers; J Bart Staal; Gerben van Hinte; Jan Paul Frölke; Hendrik van de Meent; Femke Atsma; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Thomas J Hoogeboom Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Maxim Shevtsov; Dmitriy Gavrilov; Natalia Yudintceva; Elena Zemtsova; Andrei Arbenin; Vladimir Smirnov; Irina Voronkina; Polina Adamova; Miralda Blinova; Nataliya Mikhailova; Oleg Galibin; Michael Akkaoui; Mark Pitkin Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Muhammad Adeel Akhtar; Jason Shih Hoellwarth; Shakib Al-Jawazneh; William Lu; Claudia Roberts; Munjed Al Muderis Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2021-06-23