Prosthetic rehabilitation for older dysvascular people following a unilateral transfemoral amputation

Steve Barr, Tracey E. Howe

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

8 Citations (Scopus)
59 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Dysvascularity accounts for 75% of all lower limb amputations in the UK. Around 37% of these are at transfemoral level (mid-thigh), with the majority of people being over the age of 60 and having existing co-morbidities. A significant number of these amputees will be prescribed a lower limb prosthesis for walking. However, many amputees do not achieve a high level of function following prosthetic rehabilitation. This is the second update of the review first published in 2005. Objectives: We aimed to identify and summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating rehabilitation interventions for prosthetic ambulation following unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people, whether community dwelling or institutionalised. Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched July 2014) and Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (last searched 2014 Issue 6). No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing prosthetic rehabilitation interventions following a unilateral transfemoral or transgenicular amputation in older (aged 60 years or above) dysvascular people. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently scanned the search results for potentially eligible studies and on obtaining full reports of these, selected studies for inclusion and exclusion. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. No data pooling was possible. Main results: No new studies were identified for inclusion in this update. Of the full reports obtained for consideration, one trial was included and four excluded. The included trial was a short-term crossover randomised trial which tested the effects of adding three seemingly identical prosthetic weights (150 g versus 770 g versus 1625 g) to the prostheses of 10 participants with unilateral dysvascular transfemoral amputation. Eight participants were over 60 years of age. The trial found that four participants preferred the lightest weight (150 g), five preferred the middle weight (770 g) and one preferred the addition of the heaviest weight (1625 g). Authors' conclusions: There is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform the choice of prosthetic rehabilitation, including the optimum weight of prosthesis, after unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people. A programme of research, including randomised controlled trials to examine key interventions, is urgently required in this area.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD005260
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2017
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Oct 2018

Fingerprint

Amputation
Rehabilitation
Weights and Measures
Randomized Controlled Trials
Prostheses and Implants
Amputees
Walking
Lower Extremity
Independent Living
Peripheral Vascular Diseases
Thigh
Cross-Over Studies
Patient Selection
Meta-Analysis
Language
Morbidity
Research

Cite this

@article{ace62fa3de7840fca6761ef37593c723,
title = "Prosthetic rehabilitation for older dysvascular people following a unilateral transfemoral amputation",
abstract = "Background: Dysvascularity accounts for 75{\%} of all lower limb amputations in the UK. Around 37{\%} of these are at transfemoral level (mid-thigh), with the majority of people being over the age of 60 and having existing co-morbidities. A significant number of these amputees will be prescribed a lower limb prosthesis for walking. However, many amputees do not achieve a high level of function following prosthetic rehabilitation. This is the second update of the review first published in 2005. Objectives: We aimed to identify and summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating rehabilitation interventions for prosthetic ambulation following unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people, whether community dwelling or institutionalised. Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched July 2014) and Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (last searched 2014 Issue 6). No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing prosthetic rehabilitation interventions following a unilateral transfemoral or transgenicular amputation in older (aged 60 years or above) dysvascular people. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently scanned the search results for potentially eligible studies and on obtaining full reports of these, selected studies for inclusion and exclusion. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. No data pooling was possible. Main results: No new studies were identified for inclusion in this update. Of the full reports obtained for consideration, one trial was included and four excluded. The included trial was a short-term crossover randomised trial which tested the effects of adding three seemingly identical prosthetic weights (150 g versus 770 g versus 1625 g) to the prostheses of 10 participants with unilateral dysvascular transfemoral amputation. Eight participants were over 60 years of age. The trial found that four participants preferred the lightest weight (150 g), five preferred the middle weight (770 g) and one preferred the addition of the heaviest weight (1625 g). Authors' conclusions: There is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform the choice of prosthetic rehabilitation, including the optimum weight of prosthesis, after unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people. A programme of research, including randomised controlled trials to examine key interventions, is urgently required in this area.",
author = "Steve Barr and Howe, {Tracey E.}",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD005260.pub4",
language = "English",
volume = "2017",
journal = "The Cochrane database of systematic reviews",
issn = "1361-6137",
publisher = "Cochrane Collaboration",
number = "6",

}

Prosthetic rehabilitation for older dysvascular people following a unilateral transfemoral amputation. / Barr, Steve; Howe, Tracey E.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2017, No. 6, CD005260, 23.10.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prosthetic rehabilitation for older dysvascular people following a unilateral transfemoral amputation

AU - Barr, Steve

AU - Howe, Tracey E.

PY - 2018/10/23

Y1 - 2018/10/23

N2 - Background: Dysvascularity accounts for 75% of all lower limb amputations in the UK. Around 37% of these are at transfemoral level (mid-thigh), with the majority of people being over the age of 60 and having existing co-morbidities. A significant number of these amputees will be prescribed a lower limb prosthesis for walking. However, many amputees do not achieve a high level of function following prosthetic rehabilitation. This is the second update of the review first published in 2005. Objectives: We aimed to identify and summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating rehabilitation interventions for prosthetic ambulation following unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people, whether community dwelling or institutionalised. Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched July 2014) and Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (last searched 2014 Issue 6). No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing prosthetic rehabilitation interventions following a unilateral transfemoral or transgenicular amputation in older (aged 60 years or above) dysvascular people. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently scanned the search results for potentially eligible studies and on obtaining full reports of these, selected studies for inclusion and exclusion. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. No data pooling was possible. Main results: No new studies were identified for inclusion in this update. Of the full reports obtained for consideration, one trial was included and four excluded. The included trial was a short-term crossover randomised trial which tested the effects of adding three seemingly identical prosthetic weights (150 g versus 770 g versus 1625 g) to the prostheses of 10 participants with unilateral dysvascular transfemoral amputation. Eight participants were over 60 years of age. The trial found that four participants preferred the lightest weight (150 g), five preferred the middle weight (770 g) and one preferred the addition of the heaviest weight (1625 g). Authors' conclusions: There is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform the choice of prosthetic rehabilitation, including the optimum weight of prosthesis, after unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people. A programme of research, including randomised controlled trials to examine key interventions, is urgently required in this area.

AB - Background: Dysvascularity accounts for 75% of all lower limb amputations in the UK. Around 37% of these are at transfemoral level (mid-thigh), with the majority of people being over the age of 60 and having existing co-morbidities. A significant number of these amputees will be prescribed a lower limb prosthesis for walking. However, many amputees do not achieve a high level of function following prosthetic rehabilitation. This is the second update of the review first published in 2005. Objectives: We aimed to identify and summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating rehabilitation interventions for prosthetic ambulation following unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people, whether community dwelling or institutionalised. Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched July 2014) and Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (last searched 2014 Issue 6). No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing prosthetic rehabilitation interventions following a unilateral transfemoral or transgenicular amputation in older (aged 60 years or above) dysvascular people. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently scanned the search results for potentially eligible studies and on obtaining full reports of these, selected studies for inclusion and exclusion. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. No data pooling was possible. Main results: No new studies were identified for inclusion in this update. Of the full reports obtained for consideration, one trial was included and four excluded. The included trial was a short-term crossover randomised trial which tested the effects of adding three seemingly identical prosthetic weights (150 g versus 770 g versus 1625 g) to the prostheses of 10 participants with unilateral dysvascular transfemoral amputation. Eight participants were over 60 years of age. The trial found that four participants preferred the lightest weight (150 g), five preferred the middle weight (770 g) and one preferred the addition of the heaviest weight (1625 g). Authors' conclusions: There is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform the choice of prosthetic rehabilitation, including the optimum weight of prosthesis, after unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people. A programme of research, including randomised controlled trials to examine key interventions, is urgently required in this area.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991344838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD005260.pub4

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD005260.pub4

M3 - Review article

C2 - 25618482

AN - SCOPUS:84991344838

VL - 2017

JO - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

JF - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

SN - 1361-6137

IS - 6

M1 - CD005260

ER -