Interrater reliability of mechanical tests for functional classification of transtibial prosthesis components distal to the socket.

Substantial evidence suggests that the design and associated mechanical function of lower-limb prostheses affects user health and mobility, supporting common standards of clinical practice for appropriate matching of prosthesis design and user needs. This matching process is dependent on accurate and reliable methods for the functional classification of prosthetic components. The American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association developed a set of tests for L-code characterization of prosthesis mechanical properties to facilitate functional classification of passive below-knee prosthetic components. The mechanical tests require use of test-specific fixtures to be installed in a materials testing machine by a test administrator. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the interrater reliability of test outcomes between two administrators using the same testing facility. Ten prosthetic components (8 feet and 2 pylons) that spanned the range of commercial designs were subjected to all appropriate tests. Tests with scalar outcomes demonstrated high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient(2,1) >/= 0.935), and there was no discrepancy in observation-based outcomes between administrators, suggesting that between-administrator variability may not present a significant source of error. These results support the integration of these mechanical tests for prosthesis classification, which will help enhance objectivity and optimization of the prosthesis-patient matching process for maximizing rehabilitation outcomes.

[1]  L. Portney,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[2]  Konrad Kording,et al.  Monitoring Functional Capability of Individuals with Lower Limb Amputations Using Mobile Phones , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  Malcolm MacLachlan,et al.  Identifying the Values and Preferences of Prosthetic Users: A Case Study Series Using the Repertory Grid Technique , 2009, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[4]  Martin Twiste,et al.  Amputee Independent Prosthesis Properties--a new model for description and measurement. , 2011, Journal of biomechanics.

[5]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[6]  Vibhor Agrawal,et al.  Comparison of four different categories of prosthetic feet during ramp ambulation in unilateral transtibial amputees , 2015, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[7]  Pamela Gallagher,et al.  Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation.

[8]  H. Hermens,et al.  Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet Part 1: Biomechanical analysis related to user benefits , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[9]  Martin Twiste,et al.  Stance phase mechanical characterization of transtibial prostheses distal to the socket: a review. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  Herman van der Kooij,et al.  Dynamic Balance Control (DBC) in lower leg amputee subjects; contribution of the regulatory activity of the prosthesis side. , 2012, Clinical biomechanics.

[11]  Prosthetic prescription in the Netherlands: An observational study , 2003, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[12]  K. Postema,et al.  Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation. , 2004, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  D. Howard,et al.  The effects of prosthetic ankle stiffness on ankle and knee kinematics, prosthetic limb loading, and net metabolic cost of trans-tibial amputee gait. , 2014, Clinical biomechanics.

[14]  R. Gailey Predictive Outcome Measures Versus Functional Outcome Measures in the Lower Limb Amputee , 2006 .

[15]  M. Nash,et al.  The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[16]  K. Postema,et al.  Prosthetic prescription in the Netherlands: An interview with clinical experts , 2004, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[17]  Vibhor Agrawal,et al.  Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[18]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[19]  Peter G Adamczyk,et al.  Novel method to evaluate angular stiffness of prosthetic feet from linear compression tests. , 2013, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[20]  Klaas Postema,et al.  Use of the Delphi Technique for developing national clinical guidelines for prescription of lower-limb prostheses. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[21]  Brian Kaluf Evaluation of Mobility in Persons with Limb Loss Using the Amputee Mobility Predictor and the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire–Mobility Subscale: A Six-Month Retrospective Chart Review , 2014 .