Comparison of conventional socket attachment and bone-anchored prosthesis for persons living with transfemoral amputation - mobility and quality of life.

Autor: Welke B; Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Department of Orthopaedics, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover 30625, Germany. Electronic address: welke.bastian@mh-hannover.de., Hurschler C; Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Department of Orthopaedics, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover 30625, Germany. Electronic address: hurschler.christof@mh-hannover.de., Schwarze M; Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Department of Orthopaedics, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover 30625, Germany. Electronic address: schwarze.michael@mh-hannover.de., Jakubowitz E; Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Department of Orthopaedics, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover 30625, Germany. Electronic address: jakubowitz.eike@mh-hannover.de., Aschoff HH; Department of Trauma, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover 30625, Germany. Electronic address: aschoff.horst@mh-hannover.de., Örgel M; Department of Trauma, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover 30625, Germany. Electronic address: oergel.marcus@mh-hannover.de.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) [Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)] 2023 May; Vol. 105, pp. 105954. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Apr 13.
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2023.105954
Abstrakt: Background: For patients with transfemoral amputation experiencing issues with their sockets, bone-anchored prosthesis systems are an alternative and sometimes the only way to be mobile and independent. The present cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the gait performance and quality of life of a group of patients treated with bone-anchored systems compared to those of participants treated with a conventional socket-suspended prosthesis.
Methods: A total of 17 participants with a socket-suspended and 20 with a bone-anchored prosthesis were included. Gait patterns were examined for symmetry, and performance was assessed using the six-minute walk test and the timed "Up & Go" test. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to detect signs of osteoarthritis in both hips. Mobility in everyday life and quality of life were assessed using questionnaires.
Findings: There were no differences between the groups regarding the quality of life, daily mobility, and gait performance. The step width was significantly higher for the patients using socket-suspended prosthesis. The socket-suspended group showed a significant asymmetry regarding the step length. In the socket-suspended group, the prosthetic leg showed significantly higher cartilage abrasion than the contralateral leg did.
Interpretation: Large differences in the measured outcomes in both groups illustrate the very different capabilities of the individual participants, which is apparently not primarily determined by the type of treatment. For patients who are satisfied with the socket treatment and perform well, bone-anchored prosthesis systems may not necessarily improve their functional capabilities and perceived quality of life.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: