RESUMEN
The aim of this retrospective case series study was to investigate outcomes in patients with lower limb loss based on whether or not they used a training prosthesis (TP) during rehabilitation. The medical records of 171 consecutive patients admitted to rehabilitation hospitalization between January 2014 and December 2018 following a major amputation of the lower limb were reviewed. Patients were categorized into two groups: patients who underwent rehabilitation with a TP and patients who did not use a TP. Outcomes (i.e., discharge destination, length of stay, number of sockets required, and number of the size adaptation of each socket, as well as functional level) were compared between groups. Of the 171 patients, 126 underwent rehabilitation with a TP, and 45 patients underwent rehabilitation without any TP. In conclusion, we found that patients who used a TP had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay when compared to those who did not. This length of stay for patients with TP was not influenced by age but was lowered by a higher body mass index (BMI), tibial instead of femoral amputation, and the male gender. No association was found between the use of TP and discharge destination, functional level, number of socket modifications, and number of sockets required.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify factors that may influence quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation (all etiologies). Our primary focus was on identifying factors that can be modified, enabling a more concentrated integration of these aspects into the care and treatment of amputated patients. DATA SOURCE: Medline (via Ovid) and Scopus were searched in January 2023 for studies assessing quality of life for people with lower-limb loss. Studies were included if they reported on factors that could influence quality of life. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were identified and assessed independently by 2 reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: After removing duplicates, the search yielded 2616 studies, of which 24 met our inclusion criteria (cross-sectional n = 13; prospective n = 9; retrospective n = 2). The most commonly used quality-of-life instruments were the Short Form 36, followed by the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF and the EuroQoL 5 dimension. Younger age, traumatic etiology, unilateral or below-knee amputation, presence of comorbidities, and social integration were found to influence quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation, whereas sex and socioeconomic context do not seem to have a clear influence. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of the literature identified several factors that influence quality of life in patients with lower-limb amputation. However, the results are not always consistent across studies and there is still no consensus on some factors. Conclusive findings regarding sex and socioeconomic status remain elusive, primarily because of substantial disparities observed across the literature. Future prospective longitudinal studies with clear a priori inclusion of a wide range of potential factors are needed to clarify the impact of the identified factors. Factors such as age, type of amputation, comorbidities and social integration should be considered in the management of patients with amputation.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Advanced technologies have made available the development of microprocessor prosthetic knee (MPK) to improve autonomy of patients with lower limb amputation. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the use of all types of MPK on patients' functional status and quality of life. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted this review according to the PRISMA Guidelines on Medline (via Ovid), Scopus and SportDiscuss. All identified articles were screened for their eligibility by two reviewers using Covidence software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) or the NIH Quality Assessment Tool were used to assess the quality of the studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen articles were included in the present review (7 randomized controlled trials - RCT), 6 cross-sectional and 5 follow-up studies). Number of participants included varied from 20 to 602, protocols' length varied from a single session to 12 weeks of use of MPK. Taken together, MPK users compared to NMPK users tend to present better functional status and mobility. Quality of life was also positively impacted in MPK users. On the other hand, the superiority of more advanced MPKs such as the Genium® is less clear, especially given the improvements over time of other MPKs such as the C-leg® and the Rheo knee®. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, while it is clear that MPKs outperform NMPKs both for functional status and quality of life, additional benefits of one MPK over another is less clear. Future studies are needed to clarify these aspects.