Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 10, pp 3055–3061 | Cite as

Transfemoral Amputations: Is There an Effect of Residual Limb Length and Orientation on Energy Expenditure?

  • Johanna C. BellEmail author
  • Erik J. Wolf
  • Barri L. Schnall
  • John E. Tis
  • Benjamin K. Potter
Symposium: Recent Advances in Amputation Surgery and Rehabilitation



Energy cost of ambulation has been evaluated using a variety of measures. With aberrant motions resulting from compensatory strategies, persons with transfemoral amputations generally exhibit a larger center of mass excursion and an increased energy cost. However, few studies have analyzed the effect of residual femur length and orientation or energy cost of ambulation.


The purpose of this study was to compare residual limb length and orientation with energy efficiency in patients with transfemoral amputation. We hypothesized that patients with shorter residual limbs and/or more abnormal residual femur alignment would have higher energy expenditure cost and greater center of mass movement than those with longer residual limbs resulting from lacking musculature, shorter and/or misoriented lever arms, and greater effort required to ambulate through use of compensatory movements.


Twenty-six adults with acute, trauma-related unilateral transfemoral amputations underwent gait and metabolic analysis testing. Patients were separated into groups for analysis based on residual limb length and residual femoral angle.


Cohorts with longer residual limbs walked faster than those with shorter residual limbs (self-selected walking velocity 1.28 m/s versus 1.11 m/s, measured effect size = 1.08; 95% confidence interval = short 1.10–1.12, long 1.26–1.30; p = 0.04). However, there were no differences found with the numbers available between the compared cohorts regardless of limb length or orientation in regard to O2 cost or other metabolic variables, including the center of mass motion.


Those with longer residual limbs after transfemoral amputation chose a faster self-selected walking velocity, mirroring previous studies; however, metabolic energy and center of mass metrics did not demonstrate a difference in determining whether energy expenditure is affected by length or orientation of the residual limb after transfemoral amputation. These factors may therefore have less effect on transfemoral amputee gait efficiency and energy requirements than previously thought.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Limb Length Residual Limb Lower Limb Amputation Prosthetic Knee Transfemoral Amputation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Aleshinsky SY. An energy ‘sources’ and ‘fractions’ approach to the mechanical energy expenditure problem–II. Movement of the multi-link chain model. J Biomech. 1986;19:295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baum BS, Schnall BL, Tis JE, Lipton JS. Correlation of residual limb length and gait parameters in amputees. Injury. 2008;39:728–733.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell JC, Wolf EJ, Schnall BL, Tis JE, Tis LL, Benjamin KPM. Transfemoral amputations: the effect of residual limb length and orientation on gait analysis outcome measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:408–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Blumentritt S. Comparative biomechanical analysis of current microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:644–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanc CH, Borens O. Amputations of the lower limb–an overview on technical aspects. Acta Chir Belg. 2004;104:388–392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    British Standards Institution. BS 7313 P3:1993 Prosthetics and Orthotics Part 3: Method of Describing Lower Limb Amputation Stumps; ISO 8548-2. London, UK: BSI Group; 1993:1–24.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckley JG, Spence WD, Solomonidis SE. Energy cost of walking: comparison of ‘intelligent prosthesis’ with conventional mechanism. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:330–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burdett RG, Skrinar GS, Simon SR. Comparison of mechanical work and metabolic energy consumption during normal gait. J Orthop Res. 1983;1:63–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavagna GA, Kaneko M. Mechanical work and efficiency in level walking and running. J Physiol. 1977;268:467–481.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cavagna GA, Saibene FP, Margaria R. External work in walking. J Appl Physiol. 1963;18:1–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czerniecki JM, Gitter A, Weaver K. Effect of alterations in prosthetic shank mass on the metabolic costs of ambulation in above-knee amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;73:348–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Detrembleur C, Vanmarsenille JM, De Cuyper F, Dierick F. Relationship between energy cost, gait speed, vertical displacement of centre of body mass and efficiency of pendulum-like mechanism in unilateral amputee gait. Gait Posture. 2005;21:333–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donelan JM, Kram R, Kuo AD. Simultaneous positive and negative external mechanical work in human walking. J Biomech. 2002;35:117–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genin JJ, Bastien GJ, Franck B, Detrembleur C, Willems PA. Effect of speed on the energy cost of walking in unilateral traumatic lower limb amputees. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;103:655–663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gitter A, Czerniecki J, Meinders M. Effect of prosthetic mass on swing phase work during above-knee amputee ambulation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;76:114–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gitter A, Czerniecki J, Weaver K. A reassessment of center-of-mass dynamics as a determinate of the metabolic inefficiency of above-knee amputee ambulation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;74:332–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goktepe AS, Cakir B, Yilmaz B, Yazicioglu K. Energy expenditure of walking with prostheses: comparison of three amputation levels. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34:31–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon KE, Ferris DP, Kuo AD. Metabolic and mechanical energy costs of reducing vertical center of mass movement during gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:136–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gottschalk F. Transfemoral amputation. Biomechanics and surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;361:15–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gottschalk F. Transfemoral amputation: surgical management. In: Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, eds. Atlas of Amputations and Limb Deficiencies: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles. 3rd ed. Rosemont, IL, USA: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2004:533–540.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gottschalk FA, Stills M. The biomechanics of trans-femoral amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18:12–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goujon-Pillet H, Sapin E, Fode P, Lavaste F. Three-dimensional motions of trunk and pelvis during transfemoral amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:87–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hagberg K, Tranberg R, Zugner R, Danielsson A. Reproducibility of the physiological cost index among individuals with a lower-limb amputation and healthy adults. Physiother Res Int. 2011;16:92–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hekmatfard M, Farahmand F, Ebrahimi I. Effects of prosthetic mass distribution on the spatiotemporal characteristics and knee kinematics of transfemoral amputee locomotion. Gait Posture. 2013;37:78–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huston C, Dillingham T, Esquenazi A. Rehabilitation of the lower extremity amputee. In: Textbook of Military Medicine, ed. Part IV. Surgical Combat Casualty Care: Rehabilitation of the Injured Combatant. Vol 1. Washington, DC, USA: Office of the Surgeon General at TMM Publications; 1998:79–159.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jaegers SM, Arendzen JH, de Jongh HJ. Changes in hip muscles after above-knee amputation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:276–284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jaegers SM, Arendzen JH, de Jongh HJ. Prosthetic gait of unilateral transfemoral amputees: a kinematic study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:736–743.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jaegers SM, Arendzen JH, de Jongh HJ. An electromyographic study of the hip muscles of transfemoral amputees in walking. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;328:119–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, McCrady SK, Padgett DJ, Joyner MJ. Energy expenditure and activity of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1380–1385.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lehmann JF, Price R, Okumura R, Questad K, de Lateur BJ, Negretot A. Mass and mass distribution of below-knee prostheses: effect on gait efficacy and self-selected walking speed. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:162–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maaref K, Martinet N, Grumillier C, Ghannouchi S, Andre JM, Paysant J. Kinematics in the terminal swing phase of unilateral transfemoral amputees: microprocessor-controlled versus swing-phase control prosthetic knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:919–925.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Massaad F, Lejeune TM, Detrembleur C. The up and down bobbing of human walking: a compromise between muscle work and efficiency. J Physiol. 2007;582:789–799.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mullick S. Lower limb amputation: striking the balance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994;76:420–421.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nowroozi F, Salvanelli ML, Gerber LH. Energy expenditure in hip disarticulation and hemipelvectomy amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983;64:300–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pickard-Gabriel CJ, Ledford CL, Gajewski DA, Granville RR, Andersen RC. Traumatic transfemoral amputation with concomitant ipsilateral proximal femoral fracture. A report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2764–2768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pinzur MS, Bowker JH. Knee disarticulation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;361:23–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pinzur MS, Gold J, Schwartz D, Gross N. Energy demands for walking in dysvascular amputees as related to the level of amputation. Orthopedics. 1992;15:1033–1036; discussion 1036-1037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall; 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saunders JB, Inman VT, Eberhart HD. The major determinants in normal and pathological gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953;35:543–558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture. 2002;16:255–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, Ordway N, Brooks G, Crannell J, Hickernell E, Wheeler K. Comparison between the C-leg microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee and non-microprocessor control prosthetic knees: a preliminary study of energy expenditure, obstacle course performance, and quality of life survey. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:51–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shawen SB, Doukas WC, Shrout JA, Ficke JR, Potter BK, Hayda RA, Keeling JJ, Granville RR, Smith DG. General surgical principles for the combat casualty with limb loss. Care of the Combat Amputee. Washington, DC, USA: Office of the Surgeon General at TMM Publications Borden Institute; 2009:117–152.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sjodahl C, Jarnlo GB, Soderberg B, Persson BM. Pelvic motion in trans-femoral amputees in the frontal and transverse plane before and after special gait re-education. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:227–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Traballesi M, Porcacchia P, Averna T, Brunelli S. Energy cost of walking measurements in subjects with lower limb amputations: a comparison study between floor and treadmill test. Gait Posture. 2008;27:70–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Waters RL, Lunsford BR, Perry J, Byrd R. Energy-speed relationship of walking: standard tables. J Orthop Res. 1988;6:215–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture. 1999;9:207–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Waters RL, Perry J, Antonelli D, Hislop H. Energy cost of walking of amputees: the influence of level of amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976;58:42–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Willems PA, Cavagna GA, Heglund NC. External, internal and total work in human locomotion. J Exp Biol. 1995;198:379–393.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Winter DA. A new definition of mechanical work done in human movement. J Appl Physiol. 1979;46:79–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Winter DA, Robertson DG. Joint torque and energy patterns in normal gait. Biol Cybern. 1978;29:137–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zajac FE, Neptune RR, Kautz SA. Biomechanics and muscle coordination of human walking. Part I: introduction to concepts, power transfer, dynamics and simulations. Gait Posture. 2002;16:215–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna C. Bell
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Erik J. Wolf
    • 1
  • Barri L. Schnall
    • 1
  • John E. Tis
    • 2
  • Benjamin K. Potter
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Performance & Clinical Research, Walter Reed National Military Medical CenterBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryJohns HopkinsBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations