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

Robert Gailey, Ignacio Gaunaurd, Vibhor R Agrawal, Adam Finnieston, Christopher O'Toole, Ronald Tolchin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)597-612
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Rehabilitation Research and Development
Volume49
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2012

Fingerprint

Self Report
Foot
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Peripheral Vascular Diseases
Prostheses and Implants
Amputees
Extremities
Heel
Gait
Vascular Diseases
Ankle
Walk Test

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet. / Gailey, Robert; Gaunaurd, Ignacio; Agrawal, Vibhor R; Finnieston, Adam; O'Toole, Christopher; Tolchin, Ronald.

In: Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 49, No. 4, 01.06.2012, p. 597-612.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3d90dfe503f5497f9b0abaf141dd5f0c,
title = "Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet",
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",
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",
author = "Robert Gailey and Ignacio Gaunaurd and Agrawal, {Vibhor R} and Adam Finnieston and Christopher O'Toole and Ronald Tolchin",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1682/JRRD.2011.04.0077",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "597--612",
journal = "Journal of rehabilitation R&D",
issn = "0748-7711",
publisher = "Rehabilitation Research and Development Service",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

AU - Gailey, Robert

AU - Gaunaurd, Ignacio

AU - Agrawal, Vibhor R

AU - Finnieston, Adam

AU - O'Toole, Christopher

AU - Tolchin, Ronald

PY - 2012/6/1

Y1 - 2012/6/1

N2 - 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

AB - 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

KW - Functional outcomes

KW - Gait training

KW - Lower-limb amputation

KW - Medicare Functional Classification Level

KW - Microprocessor ankle

KW - Mobility

KW - Performance-based outcome measures

KW - Prosthetic feet comparison

KW - Self-report outcome measures

KW - Transtibial amputation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862640822&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862640822&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1682/JRRD.2011.04.0077

DO - 10.1682/JRRD.2011.04.0077

M3 - Article

C2 - 22773262

AN - SCOPUS:84862640822

VL - 49

SP - 597

EP - 612

JO - Journal of rehabilitation R&D

JF - Journal of rehabilitation R&D

SN - 0748-7711

IS - 4

ER -