Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Team Approach to Prosthetic Prescription Decision-Making

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

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This paper aims to review the key concepts in prosthetic limb prescription for adults with limb loss, including the benefits of a multidisciplinary team.

Recent Findings

There is a relative absence of literature directly describing the role of a team-based approach to prosthetic limb prescription. However, comparable literature can be found in other rehabilitation topics and medical disciplines, generally in support of team-based approaches to patient care. While there is a growing body of comparative effectiveness literature for prosthetic componentry, there is generally a lack of coherent prescribing guidelines. Thus, specific prescription choices are often guided by foundational knowledge, expected functional outcomes, and the clinical experience of the prescribing team.

Summary

Given the inherent complexities and lack of established guidelines, prosthetic limb prescription is ideally accomplished through a team-based approach involving a physiatrist, prosthetist, and physical or occupational therapist. Each member serves a valuable role based on their unique educational backgrounds and clinical experience.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Finch J. The ancient origins of prosthetic medicine. Lancet. 2011;377(9765):548–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60190-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jorge M. In: Chui KK, Jorge M, Yen S, Lusardi MM, editors. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation: multidisciplinary approach, Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation fourth edition: Elsevier Inc; 2020.

  3. Rusk HA. A world to care for: the autobiography of Howard A. Rusk, M.D. New York: Random House; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bechtol CO. The prosthetics clinic team. Artif Limbs. 1954;13:9–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurichi JE, Kwong PL, Reker DM, Bates BE, Marsahll CR, Stineman MG. Clinical factors associated with prescription of a prosthetic limb in elderly veterans. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:900–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. • Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005This is the most up-to-date, large-scale epidemiological data regarding amputation rates we are aware of.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Cho B, Cunniffe B, Licht S, et al. The Amputee Mobility Predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee’s ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:613–27. https://doi.org/10.1053/ampr.2002.32309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Czerniecki J, Turner A, Williams R, Thompson ML, Hakimi K, Landry G, et al. A novel prediction tool to predict mobility outcome after lower extremity amputation secondary to peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;52:404–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.07.049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sansam K, O’Connor R, Neumann V, Bhakata B. Clinicians’ perspectives on decision making in lower limb amputee rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46:447–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sansam K, Neumann V, O’Connor R, Bhakta B. Predicting walking ability following lower limb amputation: a systematic review of the literature. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:593–603. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Geertzen J, Van Der Linde H, Rosenbrand K, Conradi M, Deckers J, Koning J, et al. Dutch evidence-based guidelines for amputation and prosthetics of the lower extremity: rehabilitation process and prosthetics. Part 2. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;39:361–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364614542725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Resnik L, Borgia M. Predicting prosthetic prescription after major lower-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:641–52. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2014.09.0216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Passero T. Devising the prosthetic prescription and typical examples. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25:117–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2013.09.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, Ajax MJ, Boone DA, Larsen JA, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36:155–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klute GK, Kantor C, Darrouzet C, Wild H, Wilkinson S, Iveljic S, et al. Lower-limb amputee needs assessment using multistakeholder focus-group approach. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:293. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2008.02.0031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Crowe CS, Impastato KA, Donaghy AC, Earl C, Friedly JL, Keys KA. Prosthetic and orthotic options for lower extremity amputation and reconstruction. Plast Aesthetic Res. 2019;2019. https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2018.70.

  17. Klute GK, Glaister BC, Berge JS. Prosthetic liners for lower limb amputees: a review of the literature. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2010;34:146–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hachisuka K, Matsushima Y, Ohmine S, Shitama H, Shinkoda K. Moisture permeability of the total surface bearing prosthetic socket with a silicone liner: is it superior to the patella-tendon bearing prosthetic socket? J UOEH. 2001;23:225–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hofstad CJ, Linde H, Limbeek J, Postema K. Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1.

  20. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, Orendurff MS, Lewandowski AL, Orriola JJ, et al. Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation: systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(2):157–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Czerniecki JM, Morgenroth DC. Metabolic energy expenditure of ambulation in lower extremity amputees: what have we learned and what are the next steps? Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:143–51. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1095948.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki J, Fergason J. Energy storage and return prostheses: does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis? Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002;17:325–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Morgan SJ, McDonald CL, Halsne EG, Cheever SM, Salem R, Kramer PA, et al. Laboratory- and community-based health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation using crossover and energy-storing prosthetic feet: a randomized crossover trial. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0189652. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189652.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Edelstein JE, Chui KK. Transfemoral prostheses. In: Chui KK, Jorge M, Yen S, Lusardi MM, editors. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation fourth edition: Elsevier Inc; 2020.

  25. Li Y, Brånemark R. Osseointegrated prostheses for rehabilitation following amputation. Unfallchirurg. 2017;120:285–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Carey SL, et al. Kinetic asymmetry in transfemoral amputees while performing sit to stand and stand to sit movements. Gait Posture. 2001;34:86–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Braza DW, Martin JY. Upper limb amputation. In: Frontera WR, editor. Essentials of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 4th ed: Elsevier, Inc; 2019.

  28. Behrend C, Reizner W, Marchessault J, Hammert W. Update on advances in upper extremity prosthetics. J Hand Surg. 2011;36:1711–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carey SL, Lura DJ, Highsmith MJ. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:247–62. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2014.08.0192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. • Maat B, Smit G, Plettenburg D, Breedveld P. Passive prosthetic hands and tools: a literature review. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2017;42:66–74 This is a recent literature review highlighting passive prosthesis use (a subject for which there is a relatively low volume of literature).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sheehan T. Rehabilitation and prosthetic restoration in upper limb amputation. In: Cifu DX, editor. Braddom’s Phys. Med. Rehabil. Elsevier Inc; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-28046-4.00009-2.

  32. TRS Prosthetics. TRS Product Catalog. 2019. https://www.trsprosthetics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WEB-Catalog-September-2019.pdf. Accessed 02/15, 2020.

  33. Morgenroth DC, Czerniecki JM. The complexities surrounding decisions related to prosthetic fitting in elderly dysvascular amputees. PM R. 2012;4:540–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Karmarkar AM, Collins DM, Wichman T, Franklin A, Fitzgerald SG, Dicianno BE, et al. Prosthesis and wheelchair use in veterans with lower-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:567–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, MacLachlan M, Wegener ST. Developing consensus on important factors associated with lower limb prosthetic prescription and use. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:2085–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:236–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640600994581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Datta D, Selvarajah K, Davey N. Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency: acquired and congenital. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:172–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hanley MA, Ehde DM, Jensen M, Czerniecki J, Smith DG, Robinson LR. Chronic pain associated with upper-limb loss. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;88:742–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181b306ec.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. • Riaz M, Miyan Z, Waris N, Zaidi SIH, Tahir B, Fawwad A, et al. Impact of multidisciplinary foot care team on outcome of diabetic foot ulcer in term of lower extremity amputation at a tertiary care unit in Karachi, Pakistan. Int Wound J. 2019;16:768–72 This is one of the most recent, large-scale studies evaluating the impacts of a multidisciplinary team in an aspect of clinical care which is closely related to the subject of this paper.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jiménez S, Rubio JA, Álvarez J, Ruiz-Grande F, Medina C. Trends in the incidence of lower limb amputation after implementation of a multidisciplinary diabetic foot unit. Endocrinol Diabetes y Nutr SEEN. 2017;64:188–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rubio JA, Aragón-Sánchez J, Jiménez S, Guadalix G, Albarracín A, Salido C, et al. Reducing major lower extremity amputations after the introduction of a multidisciplinary team for the diabetic foot. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2014;13:22–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734614521234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang C, Mai L, Yang C, Liu D, Sun K, Song W, et al. Reducing major lower extremity amputations after the introduction of a multidisciplinary team in patient with diabetes foot ulcer. BMC Endocr Disord BMC Endocrine Disorders. 2016;16:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Martínez-Gómez DA, Moreno-Carrillo MA, Campillo-Soto A, Carrillo-García A, Aguayo-Albasini JL. Reduction in diabetic amputations over 15 years in a defined Spain population. Benefits of a critical pathway approach and multidisciplinary team work. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2014;27:170–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dhand S. Multidisciplinary approach to PAD: who’s on your team? Semin Intervent Radiol. 2018;35:378–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kurichi JE. Possible incremental benefits of specialized rehabilitation bed units among veterans after lower extremity amputation. Med Care. 2009;47(4):457–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stineman MGK. The effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation in the acute postoperative phase of care after transtibial or transfemoral amputation: study of an integrated health care delivery system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(10):1863–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zachariae R, Pedersen C, Jensen A, Ehrnrooth E, Rossen P, von der Maase H. Association of perceived physician communication style with patient satisfaction, distress, cancer-related self-efficacy and perceived control over the disease. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:658–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Williams M, Davis T, Parker R, Weiss B. The role of health literacy in patient-physician communication. Family Med. 2002;34:383–9.

    Google Scholar 

  49. • Messinger S, Bozorghadad S, Pasquina P. Social relationships in rehabilitation and their impact on positive outcomes among amputees with lower limb loss at Walter Reed national military medical center. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50:86–93 This is a cross-sectional phenomenological-based study directly evaluating the impact of relationships with various providers following limb loss. It identified: enduring relationships with key care-providers, access to treatment team by patients, and peer support among patients, as being of most significance to persons with limb loss.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. • VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Rehabilitation of Individuals with Lower Limb Amputation – Clinician Summary. 2017. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Rehab/amp/VADoDLLACPGProviderSummary092817.pdf. Accessed 03/15, 2020. This is the most up-to-date clinical guidelines in the rehabilitation for veterans with limb loss and reinforces the importance of a multidisciplinary prescribing team.

  51. Government of South Australia, Statewide Rehabilitation Clinical Network. Model of Amputee Rehabilitation in South Australia. 2012. https://www.physiopedia.com/images/e/e2/Amputee%2BRehabilitation%2BModel%2Bof%2BCare.pdf. Accessed 04/15, 2020.

  52. American Physical Therapy Association. Physical therapist (PT) education overview. 2019. https://www.apta.org/For_Prospective_Students/PT_Education/Physical_Therapist_(PT)_Education_Overview.aspx.

  53. American Occupational Therapy Association. Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education. 2020. https://acoteonline.org/. Accessed 04/01, 2020.

  54. Elias JA, Morgenroth DC. Amputee care education in physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92:157–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e318269d7c8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington. Amputation Rehabilitation Fellowship. 2019. http://rehab.washington.edu/education/fellowship/amputation/default.asp. Accessed 04/10, 2020.

  56. • Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Schaepper H, Johannesson A, Orendurff MS, Kaufman K. Predicting walking ability following lower limb amputation: an updated systematic literature review. Tech Innov. 2016;18:125–37 This is a recent literature review that directly addresses walking prediction amongst those with lower limb loss. Walking/functional predictions are central to the goal of formulating an appropriate prosthetic prescription.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, de Vries J, Goeken LN, Eisma WH. Physical, mental, and social predictors of functional outcome in unilateral lower-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:803–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hanspal RS, Fisher K. Prediction of achieved mobility in prosthetic rehabilitation of the elderly using cognitive and psychomotor assessment. Int J Rehabil Res. 1997;20:315–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. O’Neill BF, Evans JJ. Memory and executive function predict mobility rehabilitation outcome after lower-limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:1083–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture. 1999;9:207–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Coffey L, Gallagher P, Horgan O, Desmond D, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to diabetes-related lower limb amputation. Diabet Med. 2009;26:1063–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CA, Polomski W, Slootman JR, van der Woude LH, Houdijk H. Physical capacity and walking ability after lower limb amputation: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:999–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Spaan MH, Vrieling AH, van de Berg P, Dijkstra PU, van Keeken HG. Predicting mobility outcome in lower limb amputees with motor ability tests used in early rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41:171–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364616670397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA

    Alex C. Donaghy & David C. Morgenroth

  2. Tacoma, USA

    Alex C. Donaghy

  3. VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), Seattle, WA, USA

    Sara J. Morgan, George E. Kaufman & David C. Morgenroth

  4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    George E. Kaufman & David C. Morgenroth

Authors
  1. Alex C. Donaghy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara J. Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George E. Kaufman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David C. Morgenroth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex C. Donaghy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

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

Donaghy, A.C., Morgan, S.J., Kaufman, G.E. et al. Team Approach to Prosthetic Prescription Decision-Making. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 8, 386–395 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-020-00289-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-020-00289-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation