| Literature DB >> 34977543 |
Mayank Seth1, Emma H Beisheim-Ryan1, Ryan T Pohlig2, John Robert Horne3, Gregory E Hicks4, Jaclyn M Sions1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in vibration perception thresholds between adults with transtibial amputation and age-matched adults without amputation and to examine associations between vibration perception thresholds and balance performance. We hypothesized that adults with transtibial amputation would demonstrate lower thresholds compared with adults without amputation and that lower thresholds would be associated with better functional balance.Entities:
Keywords: Amputation; BBS, Berg Balance Scale; FSST, Four Square Step Test; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; LLA, lower-limb amputation; Lower extremity; Perception; Postural balance; Prostheses and implants; Rehabilitation; TTA, transtibial amputation; VPT, vibration perception threshold; Vibration
Year: 2021 PMID: 34977543 PMCID: PMC8683871 DOI: 10.1016/j.arrct.2021.100161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl ISSN: 2590-1095
Fig 1Course layout for the FSST. Participants start in square 1 and move clockwise to square 1 (a-d) and then reverse (move counterclockwise) and return to square 1 (e-h). Each foot must make contact with each square for a valid timed trial.
Fig 2Participant selection based on exclusion and inclusion criteria.
Participant demographics
| Characteristic | TTA (n=34) | Controls (n=43) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female sex, n (%) | 12 (35.3) | 22 (51.2) | .176 | ||||
| Age, y | 49.3 (15.0) | 49.2 (15.2) | .975 | ||||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 29.0 (5.0) | 28.0 (5.0) | .389 | ||||
| Amputation etiology, n (%) | |||||||
| Trauma | 16 (47.1) | ||||||
| Cancer | 1 (2.9) | ||||||
| Congenital | 2 (5.9) | ||||||
| Infection | 9 (26.5) | ||||||
| Other | 6 (17.6) | ||||||
| TSAmp, median (25th, 75th percentile), y | 6 (2, 25) | - | - | ||||
| Houghton scale, median (25th, 75th percentile), 0-12 | 12 (11, 12) | - | - | ||||
| Socket comfort score, median (25th, 75th percentile), 0-10 | 9 (8, 10) | - | - | ||||
| PROMIS-29 | T-score | T-score | |||||
| Physical function, median (25th, 75th percentile), 22.9-56.9 | 56.9 (48.0, 56.9) | 56.9 (56.9, 56.9) | .002 | ||||
| Ability to participate in social roles and activities, (25th, 75th percentile), 27.5-64.2 | 64.2 (53.7, 64.2) | 64.2 (64.2, 64.2) | .123 | ||||
| Comorbidities | Yes | No | Total valid cases | Yes | No | Total valid cases | |
| Heart disease | 2 | 32 | 34 | 1 | 40 | 41 | .587 |
| Osteoarthritis | 1 | 33 | 34 | 1 | 42 | 43 | >.99 |
| Numbness or tingling | 4 | 30 | 34 | 1 | 41 | 42 | .167 |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; PROMIS-29, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 item; TSAmp, time since amputation.
Measures prosthesis use and stability when wearing a prosthesis.
Participants rated socket comfort from 0 (most uncomfortable) to 10 (most comfortable) at the time of evaluation.
Measures physical function on 4 items (chores, stair climbing, walking for 15 minutes, and running errands) that are each scored from 1 (unable to do) to 5 (without difficulty) and summed for a raw score that is converted to a T-score, where 50 represents the mean of the reference sample.
Measures participation on 4 items (regular leisure activities, family activities, usual work, and activities with friends) that are each scored from 1 (always) to 5 (never) and summed for a raw score that is converted to a T-score, where 50 represents the mean of the reference sample.
Vibration perception thresholds and balance performance of participants with TTA and controls
| TTA (n=34) | Controls (n=43) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vibration Perception Thresholds | |||||||||
| Limb | Mean ± SD | Total Valid Cases | Mean ± SD | Total Valid Cases | |||||
| Residual limb (or right) | 10.0±2.8 | 34 | 10.4±3.2 | 43 | .540 | ||||
| Sound limb (or left) | 10.5±3.4 | 34 | 10.9±3.1 | 43 | |||||
| Median (25th, 75th Percentile) | Mean Rank | Total Valid Cases | Median (25th, 75th Percentile) | Mean Rank | Total Valid Cases | ||||
| BBS, 0-56 | 56 (53, 56) | 33.26 | 34 | 56 (56, 56) | 43.53 | 43 | .009 | ||
| FSST, s | 8.93 (8.16, 10.19) | 45.13 | 31 | 8.03 (6.94, 8.94) | 32.00 | 43 | .010 | ||
NOTE. Weighted averages were used to compute vibration perception thresholds for each limb, given that 5 descending and 4 ascending vibration trials were conducted.
Indicates main effect of limb
Three participants had no valid trials.
Robust regression results
| Parameter | b | Robust Standard Error | b | Robust Standard Error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BBS | FSST | |||||
| Intercept | 61.087 | 2.727 | ≤.001 | 4.359 | 2.326 | .065 |
| control × VPT | –0.049 | 0.039 | .207 | 0.073 | 0.118 | .537 |
| TTA × VPT | –0.746 | 0.279 | .009 | 0.510 | 0.254 | .048 |
| Group | –4.818 | 2.749 | .084 | 3.014 | 2.628 | .255 |
| 0.351 | ≤.001 | 0.193 | .002 | |||
b refers to unstandardized beta coefficients.
VPT represents the right-left or residual-sound average vibration perception threshold.
Group was coded as 0 (control) and 1 (TTA); reference group for analysis was TTA.
R2 refers to overall variance explained by model.