Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Real-World Ambulation and Activity in Prosthetic Users with Wearable Sensors

  • Amputation Rehabilitation (JM Cohen, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to gather information that would motivate researchers, prosthetic development engineers, and health care providers to expand the emphasis on functional mobility, activity, and exercise that prosthetic users perform in real-world settings. Intuitive measures of daily activity performed in-tandem with laboratory assessments could provide a more complete perspective of functional performance.

Recent Findings

The use of wearable sensors to assess prosthetic use has gained traction in the recent decade and can provide ecologically valid real-world mobility and activity data. This knowledge can be used to promote exercise and develop interventions that may mitigate the comorbidities related to limb loss. Not all wearable sensors perform well on prosthetic users, and sample periods (usually 7 days) are probably too short. High tech watches from major manufacturers still have substantial errors in estimating heart rate and energy expenditure across a range of intensities, but upgrades are occurring frequently.

Summary

Objective metrics that quantify real-world mobility and activity provide a unique perspective that compliments laboratory and survey outcomes to better inform on the effectiveness of prosthetic interventions. However, choosing an appropriate sensor that is valid and sensitive is critical to capture meaningful outcomes and requires careful consideration of the activity of interest and the effects of different prosthetic prescriptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Tavares KB, Russell DM, Conrad RJ, Sizemore GC, Nguyen SH, Moon AY, Colgan BA, Condon FJ, Mayo JS, Criman ET, Lim RB. Time to weigh in on obesity and associated comorbidities in combat-wounded amputees. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2021;90,325-30.(Combat-related limb loss resulted in a rapid increase in BMI from healthy to obese. Half of these individuals progressed to obesity within just 1.3 years, suggesting that early intervention and intensive prosthetic management may be key to prevention. We are presently failing these previously active younger individuals in returning them to an active and healthy lifestyle after limb loss.)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hrubec Z, Ryder R. Traumatic limb amputations and subsequent mortality from cardiovascular disease and other causes. J Chronic Dis. 1980;33:239–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kanade RV, van Deursen RW, Price P, Harding K. Risk of plantar ulceration in diabetic patients with single-leg amputation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21:306–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gardner AW, Montgomery PS, Parker DE. Physical activity is a predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with intermittent claudication. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47:117–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardner AW, Montgomery PS, Scott KJ, Afaq A, Blevins SM. Patterns of ambulatory activity in subjects with and without intermittent claudication. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46:1208–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gardner AW, Parker DE, Montgomery PS, Scott KJ, Blevins SM. Efficacy of quantified home-based exercise and supervised exercise in patients with intermittent claudication: a randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2011;123:491–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gomez-Pinilla F, Hillman C. The influence of exercise on cognitive abilities. Compr Physiol. 2013;3:403–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Samitz G, Egger M, Zwahlen M. Domains of physical activity and all-cause mortality: systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:1382–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Taylor F, Huffman M, Macedo A, Moore T, Burke M, Davey Smith G, Ward K, Ebrahim S. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD004816.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ettehad D, Emdin C, Kiran A, Anderson S, Callender T, Emberson J, Chalmers J, Rodgers A, Rahimi K. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:957–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stepien JM, Cavenett S, Taylor L, Crotty M. Activity levels among lower-limb amputees: self-report versus step activity monitor. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:896–900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Segal AD, Kracht R, Klute GK. Does a torsion adapter improve functional mobility, pain, and fatigue in patients with transtibial amputation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:3085–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Klute GK, Berge JS, Orendurff MS, Williams RM, Czerniecki JM. Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:717–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klute GK, Berge JS, Biggs W, Pongnumkul S, Popovic Z, Curless B. The authors respond: vacuum-assisted socket suspension systems for lower extremity amputees: effect on fit, activity, and limb volume. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:922–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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;41:591–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Coleman KL, Smith DG, Boone DA, Joseph AW, del Aguila MA. Step activity monitor: long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36:8–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Salih S, Peel N, Burgess K. Monitoring activity of inpatient lower limb prosthetic users in rehabilitation using accelerometry: validation study. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2016;3:2055668316642387.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bussmann JB, Culhane KM, Horemans HL, Lyons GM, Stam HJ. Validity of the prosthetic activity monitor to assess the duration and spatio-temporal characteristics of prosthetic walking. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12:379–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McMurray RG, Ring KB, Treuth MS, Welk GJ, Pate RR, Schmitz KH, Pickrel JL, Gonzalez V, Almedia MJ, Young DR, Sallis JF. Comparison of two approaches to structured physical activity surveys for adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:2135–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Moran DS, Heled Y, Gonzalez RR. Metabolic rate monitoring and energy expenditure prediction using a novel actigraphy method. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10:MT117-20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Trost SG, Way R, Okely AD. Predictive validity of three ActiGraph energy expenditure equations for children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:380–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McClain JJ, Sisson SB, Tudor-Locke C. Actigraph accelerometer interinstrument reliability during free-living in adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:1509–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sasaki JE, John D, Freedson PS. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14:411–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Feito Y, Bassett DR, Thompson DL. Evaluation of activity monitors in controlled and free-living environments. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:733–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. John D, Miller R, Kozey-Keadle S, Caldwell G, Freedson P. Biomechanical examination of the ‘plateau phenomenon’ in ActiGraph vertical activity counts. Physiol Meas. 2012;33:219–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. John D, Freedson P. ActiGraph and Actical physical activity monitors: a peek under the hood. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:S86–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Barriera TV, Tudor-Locke C, Champagne CM, Broyles ST, Johnson WD, Katzmarzyk PT. Comparison of GT3X accelerometer and YAMAX pedometer steps/day in a free-living sample of overweight and obese adults. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:263–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Roell M, Roecker K, Gehring D, Mahler H, Gollhofer A. Player monitoring in indoor team sports: concurrent validity of inertial measurement units to quantify average and peak acceleration values. Front Physiol. 2018;9.

  29. Osgnach C, Poser S, Bernardini R, Rinaldo R, di Prampero PE. Energy cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: a new match analysis approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:170–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. •• Helgerud J, Hoydal K, Wang E, Karlsen T, Berg P, Bjerkaas M, Simonsen T, Helgesen C, Hjorth N, Bach R, Hoff J. Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2007;39,665-71.(The high intensity interval training used in this study was 1 min at 90% heart rate max repeated 10 times, not the more successful 4 min at 90% heart rate max repeated 4 times that has proven superior to moderate intensity training. Therefore, not all high intensity interval training provides similar results.)

  31. Wisloff U, Stoylen A, Loennechen JP, Bruvold M, Rognmo O, Haram PM, Tjonna AE, Helgerud J, Slordahl SA, Lee SJ, Videm V, Bye A, Smith GL, Najjar SM, Ellingsen O, Skjaerpe T. Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study. Circulation. 2007;115:3086–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ryan B, Schleh M, Ahn C, Ludzki A, Gillen J, Varshney P, Van Pelt D, Pitchford L, Chenevert T, Gioscia-Ryan R, Howton S, Rode T, Hummel S, Burant C, Little J, Horowitz J. Moderate-intensity exercise and high-intensity interval training affect insulin sensitivity similarly in obese adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105:e2941–59.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Helgerud J, Rodas G, Kemi OJ, Hoff J. Strength and endurance in elite football players. Int J Sports Med. 2011.

  34. Rognmo O, Hetland E, Helgerud J, Hoff J, Slordahl SA. High intensity aerobic interval exercise is superior to moderate intensity exercise for increasing aerobic capacity in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2004;11:216–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Sui X, LaMonte MJ, Laditka JN, Hardin JW, Chase N, Hooker SP, Blair SN. Cardiorespiratory fitness and adiposity as mortality predictors in older adults. Jama 2007;298,2507-16.(This review notes that the current array of sensors available for prosthetic users do not all perform equally, and that total daily steps is the most commonly used metric. Sample periods were predominantly for only 7 days in most published literature.)

  36. Wisloff U, Ellingsen O, Kemi OJ. High-intensity interval training to maximize cardiac benefits of exercise training? Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009;37:139–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. • Chadwell A, Diment L, Micó-Amigo M, Morgado Ramírez D, Dickinson A, Granat M, Kenney L, Kheng S, Sobuh M, Ssekitoleko R, Worsley P. Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 2020;17,93.(The latest high tech watches from major manufacturers have substantial errors in estimating heart rate and energy expenditure in sitting, and during walking and running at different intensities. There is substantial room for improvement in using these devices to monitor activity and exercise behavior.)

  38. • Feehan L, Geldman J, Sayre E, Park C, Ezzat A, Yoo J, Hamilton C, Li L. Accuracy of Fitbit devices: systematic review and narrative syntheses of quantitative data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018;6,e10527. (Combining data from a 3D acceleration sensor with a heart rate monitor provided additional accuracy in estimating energy expenditure. However, the methods still only account for 86% of the variance and is not yet commercially available.)

  39. Düking P, Giessing L, Frenkel M, Koehler K, Holmberg H, Sperlich B. Wrist-worn wearables for monitoring heart rate and energy expenditure while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity: validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8:e16716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ladlow P, Nightingale T, McGuigan M, Bennett A, Phillip R, Bilzon J. Predicting ambulatory energy expenditure in lower limb amputees using multi-sensor methods. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0209249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Thomas S, Reading J, Shephard RJ. Revision of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can J Sport Sci. 1992;17:338–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Doherty SC, Steptoe A, Rink E, Kendrick T, Hilton S. Readiness to change health behaviours among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease. J Cardiovasc Risk. 1998;5:147–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Plotnikoff RC, Brez S, Hotz SB. Exercise behavior in a community sample with diabetes: understanding the determinants of exercise behavioral change. Diabetes Educ. 2000;26:450–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Weiner BJ, Haynes-Maslow L, Kahwati LC, Kinsinger LS, Campbell MK. Implementing the MOVE! weight-management program in the Veterans Health Administration, 2007–2010: a qualitative study. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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;45:1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Orendurff MS, Tulchin K, Do VK, Jeans K, Tabakin D, Karol L. Real-world locomotor behavior following clubfoot treatment: 10 year outcomes. International Foot and Ankle Biomechanics 2010.

  47. Orendurff MS, Schoen JA, Bernatz GC, Segal AD, Klute GK. How humans walk: bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45:1077–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Glaister BC, Bernatz GC, Klute GK, Orendurff MS. Video task analysis of turning during activities of daily living. Gait Posture. 2007;25:289–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Raschke SU, Orendurff MS, Mattie JL, Kenyon DE, Jones OY, Moe D, Winder L, Wong AS, Moreno-Hernandez A, Highsmith MJ, Sanderson DJ, Kobayashi T. Biomechanical characteristics, patient preference and activity level with different prosthetic feet: a randomized double blind trial with laboratory and community testing. J Biomech. 2015;48:146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Orendurff MS, Do VK, Newman C, Williams A. How children walk: bout length during real-world locomotor behavior. Int J Exerc Sci. 2010;4:1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Orendurff MS, Kobayashi T, Villarosa CC, Coleman KL, Boone DA. Comparison of a computerized algorithm and prosthetists’ judgment in rating functional levels based on daily step activity in transtibial amputees. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2016;3:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Segal AD, Shofer J, Hahn ME, Orendurff MS, Ledoux WR, Sangeorzan BJ. Functional limitations associated with end-stage ankle arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:777–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Halsne E, Waddingham M, Hafner B. Long-term activity in and among persons with transfemoral amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50:515–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Balsamo B, Geil MD, Ellis R, Wu J. Confirmation bias affects user perception of knee braces. J Biomech. 2018;75:164–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Griffiths B, Diment L, Granat M. A machine learning classification model for monitoring the daily physical behaviour of lower-limb amputees. Sensors. 2021;21:7458.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Srisuwan B, Klute GK. Locomotor activities of individuals with lower-limb amputation. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2021;45(3):191–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Motion Analysis & Sports Performance Laboratory, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Samuel Lyons

  2. Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA

    Joseph Smith

  3. M3Robotics and Functional Biomechanics Laboratories, Department of Mechanical Engineering, CO, Golden, USA

    Ava Segal

  4. Oregon Biomechanics Institute, Ashland, OR, USA

    Michael Orendurff

Authors
  1. Samuel Lyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ava Segal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Orendurff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Orendurff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any new studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Previous studies by the authors summarized in this review obtained the appropriate human subjects ethical approvals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Amputation Rehabilitation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lyons, S., Smith, J., Segal, A. et al. Evaluating Real-World Ambulation and Activity in Prosthetic Users with Wearable Sensors. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 10, 8–16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-021-00338-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-021-00338-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation