Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Narrative Review of Prosthesis Design Decision Making After Lower-Limb Amputation for Developing Shared Decision-Making Resources

  • Published:
Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This narrative review explores available information on the process for prosthesis design and factors influencing prosthesis design decision making, to support prosthesis user’s participation in shared decision making about lower-limb prosthesis design.

Recent Findings

The prosthesis design process involves the fabrication of a first prosthesis and/or adjustments to a prosthesis throughout the life of the prosthesis user. Factors that influence prosthesis design decisions are extensive and may be specific to the individual prosthesis user, to prosthesis design options, the available resources, and/or the environment.

Summary

This review offers foundational information for a prosthesis user’s participation in shared decision making for prosthesis design, including the process of prosthesis design and factors influencing prosthesis design decisions. Future research is needed to further describe the timing of prosthesis design decisions, prosthesis design changes over time, and the role of physical and life changes of a prosthesis user on prosthesis design decisions.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

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

  1. Sinha R, van den Heuvel WJ, Arokiasamy P. Factors affecting quality of life in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(1):90–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Webster JB, Hakimi KN, Williams RM, Turner AP, Norvell DC, Czerniecki JM. Prosthetic fitting, use, and satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: a prospective study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(10):1493–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Etter K, Borgia M, Resnik L. Prescription and repair rates of prosthetic limbs in the VA healthcare system: implications for national prosthetic parity. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(6):493–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Raichle KA, Hanley MA, Molton I, et al. Prosthesis use in persons with lower- and upper-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(7):961–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Webster JB, Crunkhorn A, Sall J, Highsmith MJ, Pruziner A, Randolph BJ. Clinical Practice guidelines for the rehabilitation of lower limb amputation: an update from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(9):820–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heyns A, Jacobs S, Negrini S, Patrini M, Rauch A. Kiekens C (2021) Systematic Review of clinical practice guidelines for individuals with amputation: identification of best evidence for rehabilitation to develop the WHO’s package of interventions for rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(6):1191–7 (In this systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, the World Health Organization determined that evidence is lacking in important patient-centered topics of interest related to vocation and education, sexual and/or intimate relationships, activities of daily living or leisure activities, and education concerning socket/liner fitting).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Donaghy AC, Morgan SJ, Kaufman GE, Morgenroth DC. Team approach to prosthetic prescription decision-making. Curr Phys Med Rehab. 2020;8(4):386–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van Twillert S, Geertzen J, Hemminga T, Postema K, Lettinga A. Reconsidering evidence-based practice in prosthetic rehabilitation: a shared enterprise. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37(3):203–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Balk EM, Gazula A, Markozannes G, Kimmel HJ, Saldanha IJ, Resnik LJ, Trikalinos TA. Lower limb prostheses: measurement instruments, comparison of component effects by subgroups, and long-term outcomes [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 Sep. Report No.: 18-EHC017-EF.

  10. Stineman MG, Kwong PL, Xie D, et al. Prognostic differences for functional recovery after major lower limb amputation: effects of the timing and type of inpatient rehabilitation services in the Veterans Health Administration. PM R. 2010;2(4):232–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Meier RH 3rd, Heckman JT. Principles of contemporary amputation rehabilitation in the United States, 2013. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1):29–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. Brit Med J. 2017;359:j4891.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Rehabilitation of Lower Limb Amputation. Department of Veterans Affairs & Department of Defense, 2017.

  15. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Klute GK, Kantor C, Darrouzet C, et al. Lower-limb amputee needs assessment using multistakeholder focus-group approach. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):293–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gallagher P, Maclachlan M. Adjustment to an artificial limb: a qualitative perspective. J Health Psychol. 2001;6(1):85–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Uustal H. Prosthetic rehabilitation issues in the diabetic and dysvascular amputee. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2009;20(4):689–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2009.06.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith S, Pursey H, Jones A, Baker H, Springate G, Randell T, Moloney C, Hancock A, Newcombe L, Shaw C, Rose A, Slack H, Norman C. Clinical guidelines for the pre and post-operative physiotherapy management of adults with lower limb amputations. 2nd ed. 2016. http://bacpar.csp.org.uk/.

  20. Ostler C, Ellis-Hill C, Donovan-Hall M. Expectations of rehabilitation following lower limb amputation: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(14):1169–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Winkler SL, Schlesinger M, Krueger A, Ludwig A. Amputee Perspectives of Virtual Patient Education. Qual Rep. 2019;24(6):1309–18.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Callaghan B, Condie E, Johnston M. Using the common sense self-regulation model to determine psychological predictors of prosthetic use and activity limitations in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32(3):324–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bennett J. Limb loss: the unspoken psychological aspect. J Vasc Nurs. 2016;34(4):128–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6):e12931.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Sukhera J. Narrative reviews in medical education: key steps for researchers. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(4):418–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith DG, Michael JW, Bowker JH. Atlas of Amputations and Limb Deficiencies. In: Surgical, Prosthetic and Rehabilitation Principles. 3rd ed. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Veterans Affairs Amputation System of Care. The next step: the rehabilitation journey after lower limb amputation. 2018; https://www.qmo.amedd.army.mil/amp/Handbook.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2021.

  29. America ACo, Center NLLI. In: First Step: A Guide for Adapting to Limb Loss, vol. 8. Amputee Coalition of America; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Karmarkar AM, Collins DM, Wichman T, et al. Prosthesis and wheelchair use in veterans with lower-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(5):567–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roberts TL, Pasquina PF, Nelson VS, Flood KM, Bryant PR, Huang ME. Limb deficiency and prosthetic management. 4. Comorbidities associated with limb loss. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(3 Suppl 1):21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Knight M, Olk-Szost A, Boyd M, Miro RM. Delivery of cosmetic covers to persons with transtibial and transfemoral amputations in an outpatient prosthetic practice. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(3):343–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Major MJ, Fey NP. Considering passive mechanical properties and patient user motor performance in lower limb prosthesis design optimization to enhance rehabilitation outcomes. Phys Ther Rev. 2017;22(3–4):1–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Dickinson AS, Steer JW, Woods CJ, Worsley PR. Registering methodology for imaging and analysis of residual-limb shape after transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(2):207–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rommers GM, Vos LD, Klein L, Groothoff JW, Eisma WH. A study of technical changes to lower limb prostheses after initial fitting. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24(1):28–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE. Considerations for development of sensing and monitoring tools to facilitate treatment and care of persons with lower-limb loss: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):1–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gailey R, Allen K, Castles J, Kucharik J, Roeder M. Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(1):15–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kobayashi T, Orendurff MS, Arabian AK, Rosenbaum-Chou TG, Boone DA. Effect of prosthetic alignment changes on socket reaction moment impulse during walking in transtibial amputees. J Biomech. 2014;47(6):1315–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Esquenazi A. Gait analysis in lower-limb amputation and prosthetic rehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1):153–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Casale R, Maini M, Bettinardi O, et al. Motor and sensory rehabilitation after lower limb amputation: state of art and perspective of change. G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2013;35(1):51–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ, Burgess AR. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: a long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80(8):563–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Devan H, Carman AB, Hendrick PA, Ribeiro DC, Hale LA. Perceptions of low back pain in people with lower limb amputation: a focus group study. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(10):873–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fiedler G, Zhang X. Quantifying accommodation to prosthesis interventions in persons with lower limb loss. Gait Posture. 2016;50:14–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Murray CD. “Don’t you talk to your prosthetist?” Communicational problems in the prescription of artificial limbs. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(6):513–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Morgan SJ, Liljenquist KS, Kajlich A, Gailey RS, Amtmann D, Hafner BJ. Mobility with a lower limb prosthesis: experiences of users with high levels of functional ability. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(13):3236–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Van Der Linde H, Geertzen JH, Hofstad CJ, Van Limbeek J, Postema K. Prosthetic prescription in the Netherlands: an observational study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27(3):170–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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(24):2085–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Munin MC, Espejo-De Guzman MC, Boninger ML, Fitzgerald SG, Penrod LE, Singh J. Predictive factors for successful early prosthetic ambulation among lower-limb amputees. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38(4):379–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Schaepper H, Johannesson A, Orendurff MS, Kaufman K. Predicting walking ability following lower limb amputation: an updated systematic literature review. Technol Innov. 2016;18(2–3):125–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kulkarni J, Hannett DP, Purcell S. Bariatric amputee: a growing problem? Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;39(3):226–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Van Der Linde H, Geertzen JH, Hofstad CJ, Van Limbeek J, Postema K. Prosthetic prescription in the Netherlands: an interview with clinical experts. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2004;28(2):98–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Baars EC, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH. Skin problems of the stump and hand function in lower limb amputees: a historic cohort study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32(2):179–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Traballesi M, Delussu AS, Fusco A, et al. Residual limb wounds or ulcers heal in transtibial amputees using an active suction socket system A randomized controlled study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;48(4):613–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee DJ, Costello MC. The effect of cognitive impairment on prosthesis use in older adults who underwent amputation due to vascular-related etiology: a systematic review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(2):144–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Larner S, van Ross E, Hale C. Do psychological measures predict the ability of lower limb amputees to learn to use a prosthesis? Clin Rehabil. 2003;17(5):493–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hafner BJ, Smith DG. Differences in function and safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and-3 transfemoral amputees and influence of prosthetic knee joint control. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):417–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Borrenpohl D, Kaluf B, Major MJ. Survey of US Practitioners on the validity of the Medicare Functional Classification Level System and Utility of Clinical Outcome Measures for Aiding K-Level Assignment. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2016;97(7):1053–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Major MJ, Johnson WB, Gard SA. Interrater reliability of mechanical tests for functional classification of transtibial prosthesis components distal to the socket. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(4):467–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 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(2):171–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pitkin M. What can normal gait biomechanics teach a designer of lower limb prostheses? Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2013;15(1):3–10.

    MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Sinha R, van den Heuvel WJ, Arokiasamy P. Adjustments to amputation and an artificial limb in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38(2):115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, van Sonderen E, Goeken LN, Eisma WH. Factors related to successful job reintegration of people with a lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(10):1425–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Waldera KE, Heckathorne CW, Parker M, Fatone S. Assessing the prosthetic needs of farmers and ranchers with amputations. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(3):204–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Eshraghi A, Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Ali S, Saevarsson SK, Abas WAW. An experimental study of the interface pressure profile during level walking of a new suspension system for lower limb amputees. Clin Biomech. 2013;28(1):55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Luza LP, Ferreira EG, Minsky RC, Pires GKW, da Silva R. Psychosocial and physical adjustments and prosthesis satisfaction in amputees: a systematic review of observational studies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(5):582–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, Geurts AC, Postema K, Geertzen JH, van Limbeek J. A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(4):555–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Pasquina CP, Carvalho AJ, Sheehan TP. Ethics in rehabilitation: access to prosthetics and quality care following amputation. AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(6):535–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wyss D, Lindsay S, Cleghorn WL, Andrysek J. Priorities in lower limb prosthetic service delivery based on an international survey of prosthetists in low- and high-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;39(2):102–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Cutti AG, Lettieri E, Del Maestro M, et al. Stratified cost-utility analysis of C-Leg versus mechanical knees: findings from an Italian sample of transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(3):227–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Handford ML, Srinivasan M. Energy-optimal human walking with feedback-controlled robotic prostheses: a computational study. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018;26(9):1773–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Price MA, Beckerle P, Sup FC. Design optimization in lower limb prostheses: a review. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27(8):1574–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Cochrane H, Orsi K, Reilly P. Lower limb amputation Part 3: prosthetics--a 10 year literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25(1):21–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kaufman KR, Bernhardt K. Functional performance differences between carbon fiber and fiberglass prosthetic feet. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021;45(3):205–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(8):931–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S. Transfemoral prosthesis suspension systems: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;93(9):809–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Sanders JE, Fatone S. Residual limb volume change: systematic review of measurement and management. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(8):949–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Arifin N, Chung TY. A comparison of pressure distributions between two types of sockets in a bulbous stump. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(4):509–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, van Limbeek J, Postema K, Geertzen JH. Use of the Delphi Technique for developing national clinical guidelines for prescription of lower-limb prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):693–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Giesberts B, Ennion L, Hjelmstrom O, et al. The modular socket system in a rural setting in Indonesia. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(3):336–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Klute GK, Glaister BC, Berge JS. Prosthetic liners for lower limb amputees: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34(2):146–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 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(3):225–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Richardson A, Dillon MP. User experience of transtibial prosthetic liners: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(1):6–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Kamyab M, Eshraghi A, Luoviksdottir AG, Abas WABW. Clinical evaluation of two prosthetic suspension systems in a bilateral transtibial amputee. Am J Phys Med Rehab. 2012;91(10):894–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Klute GK, Bates KJ, Berge JS, Biggs W, King C. Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(6):721–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hachisuka K, Nakamura T, Ohmine S, Shitama H, Shinkoda K. Hygiene problems of residual limb and silicone liners in transtibial amputees wearing the total surface bearing socket. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(9):1286–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Samitier CB, Guirao L, Costea M, Camós JM, Pleguezuelos E. The benefits of using a vacuum-assisted socket system to improve balance and gait in elderly transtibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(1):83-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364614546927. Epub 2014 Sep 26. Erratum in: Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(4):NP2.

  87. Abu Osman NA, Gholizadeh H, Eshraghi A, Wan Abas WAB. Clinical evaluation of a prosthetic suspension system: looped silicone liner. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(5):476–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Rosenblatt NJ, Ehrhardt T. The effect of vacuum assisted socket suspension on prospective, community-based falls by users of lower limb prostheses. Gait Posture. 2017;55:100–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Caliskan Uckun A, Yurdakul FG, Almaz SE, et al. Reported physical activity and quality of life in people with lower limb amputation using two types of prosthetic suspension systems. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019;43(5):519–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Varrecchia T, Serrao M, Rinaldi M, et al. Common and specific gait patterns in people with varying anatomical levels of lower limb amputation and different prosthetic components. Hum Mov Sci. 2019;66:9–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Moller S, Hagberg K, Samulesson K, Ramstrand N. Perceived self-efficacy and specific self-reported outcomes in persons with lower-limb amputation using a non-microprocessor-controlled versus a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(3):220–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al. Functional performance differences between the Genium and C-Leg prosthetic knees and intact knees. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(6):753–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Poonsiri J, van Putten SWE, Ausma AT, Geertzen JHB, Dijkstra PU, Dekker R. Are consumers satisfied with the use of prosthetic sports feet and the provision process? A Mixed-Methods Study Med Hypotheses. 2020;143:109869.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Iosa M, Paradisi F, Brunelli S, et al. Assessment of gait stability, harmony, and symmetry in subjects with lower-limb amputation evaluated by trunk accelerations. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):623–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Safaeepour Z, Eshraghi A, Geil M. The effect of damping in prosthetic ankle and knee joints on the biomechanical outcomes: a literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41(4):336–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Nederhand MJ, Van Asseldonk EH, van der Kooij H, Rietman HS. Dynamic balance control (DBC) in lower leg amputee subjects; contribution of the regulatory activity of the prosthesis side. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2012;27(1):40–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Stevens PM, Rheinstein J, Wurdeman SR. Prosthetic foot selection for individuals with lower-limb amputation: a clinical practice guideline. J Prosthet Orthot. 2018;30(4):175–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Poonsiri J, Dekker R, Dijkstra PU, Hijmans JM, Geertzen JHB. Bicycling participation in people with a lower limb amputation: a scoping review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Lamers EP, Eveld ME, Zelik KE. Subject-specific responses to an adaptive ankle prosthesis during incline walking. J Biomech. 2019;95: 109273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. •Major MJ, Hansen AH, Esposito ER. Focusing research efforts on the unique needs of women prosthesis users. J Prosthet Orthot. 2021;Online first. (In this narrative review, preferences of women with amputation are explored and discussed when considering prosthetic foot design and selection. Results suggest that women prefer different characteristics in prosthetic feet related to versatility in footwear and prosthetic foot features, and that evidence on the effects of footwear, prosthesis design, and mobility in women to guide prosthetic foot selection is lacking).

  102. Esposito ER, Lipe DH, Rabago CA. Creative prosthetic foot selection enables successful ambulation in stiletto high heels. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(3):344–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Hofstad C, Linde H, Limbeek J, Postema K. Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2004(1):CD003978. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003978.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Underwood HA, Tokuno CD, Eng JJ. A comparison of two prosthetic feet on the multi-joint and multi-plane kinetic gait compensations in individuals with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004;19(6):609–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Koehler-McNicholas SR, Savvas Slater BC, Koester K, Nickel EA, Ferguson JE, Hansen AH. Bimodal ankle-foot prosthesis for enhanced standing stability. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0204512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204512.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Kamali M, Karimi MT, Eshraghi A, Omar H. Influential factors in stability of lower-limb amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92(12):1110–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Arifin N, Abu Osman NA, Ali S, Wan Abas WA. The effects of prosthetic foot type and visual alteration on postural steadiness in below-knee amputees. Biomed Eng Online. 2014;13(1):23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Delussu AS, Brunelli S, Paradisi F, et al. Assessment of the effects of carbon fiber and bionic foot during overground and treadmill walking in transtibial amputees. Gait Posture. 2013;38(4):876–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Houdijk H, Wezenberg D, Hak L, Cutti AG. Energy storing and return prosthetic feet improve step length symmetry while preserving margins of stability in persons with transtibial amputation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(Suppl 1):76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Wurdeman SR, Myers SA, Stergiou N. Amputation effects on the underlying complexity within transtibial amputee ankle motion. Chaos. 2014;24(1):013140.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  111. Koehler-McNicholas SR, Nickel EA, Medvec J, Barrons K, Mion S, Hansen AH. The influence of a hydraulic prosthetic ankle on residual limb loading during sloped walking. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173423.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Poonsiri J, Dekker R, Dijkstra PU, et al. Cycling of people with a lower limb amputation in Thailand. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0220649.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Hafner BJ, Sanders JE, Czerniecki JM, Fergason J. Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: a review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(1):1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Czerniecki JM, Shofer JB, Klute GK. Local dynamic stability of amputees wearing a torsion adapter compared to a rigid adapter during straight-line and turning gait. J Biomech. 2010;43(14):2798–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Segal AD, Kracht R, Klute GK. Does a torsion adapter improve functional mobility, pain, and fatigue in patients with transtibial amputation? Clin Orthop Relat R. 2014;472(10):3085–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(14–15):837–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Senra H, Oliveira RA, Leal I, Vieira C. Beyond the body image: a qualitative study on how adults experience lower limb amputation. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(2):180–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Hoefel L, O’Connor AM, Lewis KB, et al. 20th anniversary update of the Ottawa decision support framework part 1: a systematic review of the decisional needs of people making health or social decisions. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(5):555–81 (In this systematic review, additional manifestations of patient decision needs were identified for revision to the Ottawa Decision Support Framework for supporting shared decision making. Of note, decisional needs manifestations included information overload, unrealistic expectations for outcome probabilities, and unpredictable decision timing).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Dillon MP, Major MJ, Kaluf B, Balasanov Y, Fatone S. Predict the Medicare Functional Classification Level (K-level) using the amputee mobility predictor in people with unilateral transfemoral and transtibial amputation: a pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(2):191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Anderson CB, Kittelson AJ, Wurdeman SR, et al. Understanding decision-making in prosthetic rehabilitation by prosthetists and people with lower limb amputation: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022:1–10 (In this qualitative study of perspectives of prosthetists and lower limb prosthesis users, results demonstrate that lower limb prosthesis users are uncertain about or unaware of the various prosthesis design decisions that take place to receive a prosthesis and that multiple priorities must be balanced in order to contribute to prosthetic rehabilitation decisions).

Download references

Funding

This work was partly funded by the Orthotic and Prosthetic Education and Research Foundation. This work also received support from NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA grant no. UL1 TR002535.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Program, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA

    Chelsey B. Anderson & Cory L. Christiansen

  2. Department of Research, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Aurora, CO, USA

    Chelsey B. Anderson & Cory L. Christiansen

  3. James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence and the Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Chelsey B. Anderson

  4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Division of Prosthetics and Orthotics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Stefania Fatone

Authors
  1. Chelsey B. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefania Fatone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cory L. Christiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Literature search, material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by CA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CA, and all authors contributed to the conceptualization, and critical revisions of the manuscript. All tables and figures are original work by the authors and research team. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chelsey B. Anderson.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

This work is part of a greater dissertation project, of which some parts have been previously published: Anderson CB. Developing a Shared Decision-Making Aid for Prosthesis Design. Ph.D., University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, Ann Arbor, 2022. The authors disclose no other previous presentation of this research, manuscript, or abstract.

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, C.B., Fatone, S. & Christiansen, C.L. A Narrative Review of Prosthesis Design Decision Making After Lower-Limb Amputation for Developing Shared Decision-Making Resources. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 12, 26–38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-024-00432-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-024-00432-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation