Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development (JRRD)

Quick Links

  • Health Programs
  • Protect your health
  • Learn more: A-Z Health
Veterans Crisis Line Badge
 

Volume 49 Number 4, 2012
   Pages 597 — 612

Abstract — Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

Robert S. Gailey, PhD, PT;1–2* Ignacio Gaunaurd, PhD, MSPT;2 Vibhor Agrawal, PhD, MS (BioE);1–2 Adam Finnieston, CPO, LPO;3 Christopher O’Toole, MS (BioE);2 Ronald Tolchin, DO4
1Department of Physical Therapy, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL; 2Functional Outcomes Research and Evaluation Center, Miami Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System, Miami, FL; 3Arthur Finnieston Prosthetics + Orthotics, Miami, FL; 4Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Miami VA ­Healthcare System, Miami, FL

Abstract — We examined the application of outcome measures to determine changes in function caused by standardized functional prosthetic gait training and the use of four different prosthetic feet in people with unilateral transtibial limb loss. Two self-report measures (Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Scale [PEQ-13] and Locomotor Capabilities Index [LCI]), and three performance-based measures (Amputee Mobility Predictor with a prosthesis [AMPPRO], 6-minute walk test [6MWT] and step activity monitor [SAM]) were used. Ten people with unilateral transtibial limb loss, five with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and five without PVD, completed testing. Subjects were tested at baseline and after receiving training with their existing prosthesis and with the study socket and four prosthetic feet, i.e., SACH (solid ankle cushion heel), SAFE (stationary attachment flexible endoskeletal), Talux, and Proprio feet, over 8 to 10 weeks. Training was administered between testing sessions. No differences were detected by the PEQ-13, LCI, 6MWT, or SAM following training and after fitting with test feet. The AMPPRO demonstrated differences following training with the existing prosthesis in the PVD group and between selected feet from baseline testing (p </= 0.05). Significant differences were found between the PVD and the non-PVD groups (p </= 0.05) in the AMPPRO and 6MWT when using the Proprio foot. Self-report measures were unable to detect differences between prosthetic feet.

Keywords:functional outcomes, gait training, lower-limb amputation, Medicare Functional Classification Level, microprocessor ankle, mobility, performance-based outcome measures, prosthetic feet comparison, self-report outcome measures, transtibial amputation.


View HTML  ¦  View PDF  ¦  Contents Vol. 49, No. 4
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows:
Gailey 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2011.04.0077
iThenticateCrossref

Last Reviewed or Updated  Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:27 AM

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional