Effects of lower limb prosthesis on activity, participation, and quality of life: A systematic review

Prosthetics and Orthotics International

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 145-158

  Samuelsson, Kersti A M ^a   Töytäri, Outi ^b   Salminen, Anna Liisa ^c   Brandt, Åse ^d  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c SOCIAL INSURANCE INSTITUTION   (Finland)

^d Danish Centre for Assistive Technology   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Amputees; daily living; evidence

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DATA BASE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LEG PROSTHESIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADULT; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MICROCOMPUTERS; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION;

EID: 84864430791     PISSN: 03093646     EISSN: 17461553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0309364611432794     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Fergason JR, Boone DA. Custom design in lower limb prosthesis for athletic activity. Phys Med & Rehabil Clin North Am. 2000 ; 11 (3). 681-99
2. Carroll K. Adaptive prosthetics for the lower extremity. Orthot Prosthet. 2001 ; 6 (2). 371-86
3. Scherman RA. Utilization of prosthesis among US veterans with traumatic amputation: A pilot survey. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999 ; 36 (2). 100-08
4. Poljak-Guberina R, Zivkovic O, Muljacic A, Guberina M, Bernt-Zivkovic T. The amputees and quality of life. Coll Antropol. 2005 ; 29 (2). 603-09 (Pubitemid 43115162)
5. Karmarker AM, Collins DM, Wichman T, Franklin A, Fitzgerald SG, Dicianno BE, Pasquina PF, Cooper RA. Prosthesis and wheelchair use in veterans with lower-limb amputation. JRRD. 2009 ; 46 (5). 567-76
6. Hagberg KBR, Guntherberg B, Rydevik B. Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: Prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in patients at 2-year follow-up. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008 ; 32 (1). 29-41 (Pubitemid 351386527)
7. Sullivan JUM, Robinson K, Sooriakumaran S. Rehabilitation of the trans-femoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: the United Kingdom experience. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003 ; 27: 114-20 (Pubitemid 37236012)
8. Van der Linde , Hofstad CJ, Geurts ACH, Postema K, Geertzeen JHB, van Limbeek J. A systematic review of the effect on different prosthetic components on human functioning with lower-limb prosthesis. JRRD. 2004 ; 41 (4). 555-70 (Pubitemid 39304849)
9. Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Nissman D, Lohr KN, Carey TS. A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. J Clin Epidemiolog. 2006 ; 59 (10). 1040-48 (Pubitemid 44374310)
10. Assistive products for persons with disabilities-classification and terminology. Geneva: ISO Copyright Office ; 2007
11. Salminen A-L, Brandt Å, Samuelsson K, Töytäri O, Malmivaara A. Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: A systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009 ; 41: 697-706
12. Brandt Å, Samuelsson K, Töytäri O, Salminen A-L. Activity & participation, quality of life, and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems and smart home technology: A systematic review. J Disabil Rehabil Assistive Technol. 2010 ;:
13. Borghouts A, Koes BW, Bouter LM. The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain. 1998 ; 77: 1-13 (Pubitemid 28398828)
14. Shekelle PG, Andersson G, Bombardies C, cherkin D, Deyo R, Keller R, et al. A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. Spine. 1994 ; 19 (Suppl 18). 2028-31
15. Van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Hayden J, Koes B. Statistical significance versus clinical importance trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example. Spine. 2007 ; 32: 1785-90 (Pubitemid 47075540)
16. Coleman KL, Boone DA, Laing LS, Mathews DE, Smith DG. Quantification of prosthetic outcomes: Elastomeric gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspension. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004 ; 41 (4). 591-602 (Pubitemid 39304852)
17. Klute GK, Berge JS, Orendurff MS, Williams RM. Prosthetic Intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 ; 87: 717-22
18. Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL. Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008 ; 45 (1). 1-14
19. Donovan-Hall MK, Yardley L, Watts RJ. Engagement in activities revealing the body and psychosocial adjustment in adults with a trans-tibial prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002 ; 26: 15-22
20. Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 ; 88: 207-17 (Pubitemid 46161319)
21. Selles RW, Janssens PJ, Jongenengel CD, Bussmann JB. A randomized controlled trial comparing functional outcome and cost efficiency of a total surface-bearing socket versus a conventional patellar tendon-bearing socket in transtibial amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 ; 86: 154-61 (Pubitemid 40082126)
22. Gerzeli S, Torbica A, Fattore G. Cost utility analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control (C-leg) compared with mechanical technology in trans-femoral amputees. Eur J Health Econ. 2009 ; 10: 47-55
23. Geil MD. Assessing the state of clinically applicable research for evidence-based practice in prosthetics and orthotics. JRRD. 2009 ; 46 (3). 305-14
24. Judge A, Cooper C, Arden NK, Williams S, Hobbs N, Dixon D, Günther KP, Dreinhoefer K, Dieppe PA. Pre-operative expectation predicts 12-month post-operative outcome among patients undergoing primary total hip replacement in European orthopaedic centres. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, Osteoarthritis Research Society. 2011 ; 19 (6). 659-67
25. Hofstad C, Van der Linde H, Van Limbeek J, Postema K. Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 ; (1). CD003978
26. Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: A review. Disabil Rehabil. 2004 ; 26 (14/15). 837-50 (Pubitemid 39089229)
27. Geertzen JHB, Martina JD, Rietman HS. Lower limb amputation. Part 2: Rehabilitation-a 10 year literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001 ; 25: 14-20 (Pubitemid 32454537)
28. Johnston M, Sherer M, Whyte J. Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Rehabil. 2006 ; 85: 292-309