Limb Salvage With Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis Versus Transtibial Amputation: A Comparison of Functional Gait Outcomes

Objectives: To determine if there is a difference in functional gait outcomes between patients with limb injuries treated with either transtibial amputation or limb preservation with the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis. Design: Retrospective prognostic study. Setting: Tertiary referral military hospital. Patients: This study included 10 transtibial amputees and 10 limb preservation patients using the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis who were matched by body mass index after excluding for nontraumatic, proximal ipsilateral, contralateral, spine, or traumatic brain injuries. Transtibial amputation patients were also excluded if they did not have a gait study between 6 and 12 months after independent ambulation. Limb preservation were excluded if they did not complete the “Return to Run” program. Interventions: An observational study of functional outcomes using instrumented gait analysis. Outcome Measures: Spatiotemporal, kinetic (vertical ground reaction force), unified deformable power, work, and efficiency. Results: Limb preservation patients walked with a significantly slower cadence (P = 0.036) and spent less time on their affected limb in stance (P = 0.045), and longer in swing (P = 0.019). Amputees had significantly increased maximum positive power in both limbs (P = 0.004 and P = 0.029) and increased maximum negative power on the unaffected limb (P = 0.035). Amputees had significantly increased positive and negative work in the affected limb (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.014) and positive work in the unaffected limb (P = 0.042). There was no significant difference in the kinetic data or efficiency. Conclusions: Limb preservation patients spend less time on their affected limb as a percentage of the gait cycle. The unified deformable power demonstrated more dynamic gait in amputees, with peak values closer to normative data. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[1]  R. Ferreira,et al.  Long-Term Results of Salvage Surgery in Severely Injured Feet , 2010, Foot & ankle international.

[2]  Joseph R Hsu,et al.  Can an ankle-foot orthosis change hearts and minds? , 2011, Journal of surgical orthopaedic advances.

[3]  P. Belmont,et al.  Pelvic, spinal and extremity wounds among combat-specific personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (2003-2011): A new paradigm in military musculoskeletal medicine. , 2013, Injury.

[4]  Joseph R Hsu,et al.  Return to running and sports participation after limb salvage. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[5]  Steven J Stanhope,et al.  A unified deformable (UD) segment model for quantifying total power of anatomical and prosthetic below-knee structures during stance in gait. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  E. Bluman,et al.  Recent advances in lower extremity amputations and prosthetics for the combat injured patient. , 2010, Foot and ankle clinics.

[7]  O. Rettig,et al.  Dynamic assist by carbon fiber spring AFOs for patients with myelomeningocele. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[8]  Joseph C Wenke,et al.  Comparative effect of orthosis design on functional performance. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  M P Kadaba,et al.  Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking , 1990, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  S. Simon.  Gait Analysis, Normal and Pathological Function. , 1993 .

[11]  K. Siegel,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of the energy-storing capabilities of SACH and Carbon Copy II prosthetic feet during the stance phase of gait in a person with below-knee amputation. , 1992, Physical therapy.

[12]  D. Shurr,et al.  The effects of prosthetic foot design on physiologic measurements, self-selected walking velocity, and physical activity in people with transtibial amputation. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  James F Kellam,et al.  An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation after leg-threatening injuries. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Arthur D Kuo,et al.  The six determinants of gait and the inverted pendulum analogy: A dynamic walking perspective. , 2007, Human movement science.

[15]  J Maxwell Donelan,et al.  Dynamic Principles of Gait and Their Clinical Implications , 2010, Physical Therapy.

[16]  Jason M. Wilken,et al.  Can an Integrated Orthotic and Rehabilitation Program Decrease Pain and Improve Function After Lower Extremity Trauma? , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  Roman A Hayda,et al.  The Military Extremity Trauma Amputation/Limb Salvage (METALS) study: outcomes of amputation versus limb salvage following major lower-extremity trauma. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  Ben Heller,et al.  A comparative study of conventional and energy-storing prosthetic feet in high-functioning transfemoral amputees. , 2007, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[19]  Elena M Gutierrez-Farewik,et al.  Effects of carbon fibre spring orthoses on gait in ambulatory children with motor disorders and plantarflexor weakness , 2007, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[20]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Health-care costs associated with amputation or reconstruction of a limb-threatening injury. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  Ryan V. Blanck,et al.  Return to Duty After Integrated Orthotic and Rehabilitation Initiative , 2014, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[22]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Mobility changes in individuals with dysvascular amputation from the presurgical period to 12 months postamputation. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.