Are consumers satisfied with the use of prosthetic sports feet and the provision process? A mixed-methods study

Development of the ECLIPSE model of meaningful outcome domains following lower limb amputation and prosthetic rehabilitation, through systematic review and best fit framework synthesis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about which outcome domains characterise meaningful recovery following prosthetic rehabilitation and should be measured. Our previous qualitative work developed a conceptual model of outcome domains which are meaningful to patients. This qualitative synthesis aims to develop that model by exploring views and experiences of recovery captured in the limb loss literature, and use these to produce a second iteration of the model describing outcome domains of importance following prosthetic rehabilitation from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using CINAHL, Psychinfo and Web of Science from 2011 to early 2023. Studies with a qualitative design focusing on views and experiences of lower limb prosthetic users were eligible for inclusion. Quality was assessed using the CASP tool. 'Best Fit' framework synthesis was used to synthesise the evidence and develop the conceptual model.

RESULTS

40 studies were included, describing the experiences of 539 participants. Data supported the pre-existing conceptual model and led to development of four of the five domains. The newly named ECLIPSE model describes meaningful outcome domains as 1) Being able to participate in important activities and roles, 2) Participating in the way I want to, 3) My prosthesis works for me, 4) If I am in pain, I can manage it, and 5) I am able to accept my new normal. Studies came from 15 countries showing good coverage of high-income settings. Few participants from low-and-middle-income countries were included, it is unclear if the ECLIPSE model describes outcome domains of importance in these settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This synthesis provides a rigorous foundation for understanding outcome domains of importance following lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation from the patient's perspective. The ECLIPSE model is an accessible representation of recovery which could direct rehabilitation programmes, as well as inform the evaluation of prosthetic care through the selection of outcome measures.

Prevalence of secondary prosthesis use in lower limb prosthesis users

PURPOSE

Prostheses designed for daily use are often inappropriate for high-level activities and/or are susceptible to water damage and mechanical failure. Secondary prostheses, such as activity-specific or back-up prostheses, are typically required to facilitate uninterrupted participation in desired life pursuits. This study estimated the prevalence of secondary prosthesis use in a large, national sample of lower limb prosthesis users (LLPUs).

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of survey data from three cross-sectional studies that assessed mobility in LLPUs. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the percentage of secondary prosthesis users and percentages of LLPUs that used different type(s) of secondary prosthesis(es). Secondary prosthesis users and non-users were compared to identify differences in participant characteristics between groups.

RESULTS

Of participants in the analysis (n = 1566), most (65.8%) did not use a secondary prosthesis. The most common secondary prosthesis types were back-up (19.2%) and activity-specific prostheses (13.5%). Secondary prosthesis users differed significantly from non-users with respect to gender, race, and other characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that secondary prosthesis use for most LLPUs is limited and may differ based on users' demographic and clinical characteristics. Future research should determine how LLPUs' health-related quality-of-life outcomes are affected by access to and use of secondary prostheses.Implications for RehabilitationSecondary prostheses, including activity-specific, back-up, and shower prostheses, have the potential to improve function, mobility, and participation for people who use lower limb prostheses.Most lower limb prosthesis users do not use secondary prostheses, and access to these devices may be related to users' demographic and clinical characteristics.Rehabilitation professionals play a key role in facilitating prosthesis users' access to secondary prostheses and should advocate for those who need them.

'It's more than just a running leg': a qualitative study of running-specific prosthesis use by children and youth with lower limb absence

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of running-specific prostheses (RSPs) by children with lower limb absence (LLA) along with the benefits and challenges of RSPs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this descriptive qualitative study, eight children (ages 8-20 years) and their parents participated in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Coded data were the foundation for central theme development.

RESULTS

Three main themes were generated. "Run faster, jump higher, do more" (the benefits of RSP use), "Every leg serves its purpose" (comparing functionality between daily use prostheses and RSPs), and "A lot more to think about" (additional considerations with RSP use).

CONCLUSIONS

RSPs have a positive impact in promoting children's engagement in sports and physical activities. While some children used their RSP primarily for running, others wore it for a broader range of physical activities. Issues with balance and discomfort caused by leg length discrepancies and/or ill-fitting sockets limited daily wear time. Limitations related to current RSP designs and clinical implementation should be addressed to optimize the functional potential of children with unilateral or bilateral LLA.Implications for rehabilitationRunning-specific prostheses (RSPs) positively impacted children's ability to participate in some sports with peers promoting their physical and social well-being.The main issues that children faced were discomfort, difficulty balancing, and inability to use RSPs for certain sports, while parents' issues focused on supporting prosthesis use and transport, and adjustments of different prostheses to keep up with their child's growth.Clinicians should be aware of the challenges of RSP use to best support children and their families.Designers should focus on addressing limitations with current RSPs to facilitate the diverse needs of pediatric users.