Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews

M. Jason Highsmith, Jason T. Kahle, Rebecca M. Miro, Michael S. Orendurff, Amanda L. Lewandowski, John J. Orriola, Bryce Sutton, Janos Ertl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Considering transtibial amputation (TTA) rehabilitation costs and complexity, high-quality literature should inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews (SRs) suggest this is not the case. This article's purpose was to review the highest-quality evidence available to guide clinical practice for TTA regarding five prosthetic intervention areas. Six databases were searched for high-quality SRs and prospective clinical trials (randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). Reviewers screened, sorted, rated (i.e., methodologic quality, bias risk), and extracted article data. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Thirty-one references were included (25 RCTs and 6 SRs). Five topical areas emerged (alignment, feet and ankles, interface, postoperative care, pylons). Twenty-three evidence statements were supported by level 2 evidence and eight by level 1 evidence. All RCTs reported randomization and reasonable data presentation. Concealed allocation and blinding were not widely used. Mean attrition was 11%. SRs included no meta-analyses. Functional level was poorly reported. Grouping feet and ankle components by functional classification enabled meta-analyses, though variance was considerable given the small sample sizes. Prosthetic interventions are generally safe for TTAs. High-quality literature enabled formulation of evidence statements to support select clinical practice areas, though quantity was lacking. Thus, numerous topics related to TTA care lack rigorous evidence. Although blinding in prosthetic research requires increased funding and effort, it could greatly improve the methodologic quality of prosthetic research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)157-184
Number of pages28
JournalJournal of Rehabilitation Research and Development
Volume53
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Amputation
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Ankle
Foot
Postoperative Care
Random Allocation
Research
Sample Size
Analysis of Variance
Rehabilitation
Clinical Trials
Databases
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Amputee
  • Below-knee
  • Immediate postoperative prosthesis
  • Prosthetic foot
  • Pylon
  • Residual limb
  • Socket
  • Torsion
  • Valgus
  • Varus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation : Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews. / Highsmith, M. Jason; Kahle, Jason T.; Miro, Rebecca M.; Orendurff, Michael S.; Lewandowski, Amanda L.; Orriola, John J.; Sutton, Bryce; Ertl, Janos.

In: Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2016, p. 157-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Highsmith, M. Jason ; Kahle, Jason T. ; Miro, Rebecca M. ; Orendurff, Michael S. ; Lewandowski, Amanda L. ; Orriola, John J. ; Sutton, Bryce ; Ertl, Janos. / Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation : Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews. In: Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2016 ; Vol. 53, No. 2. pp. 157-184.
@article{1ba47a5d7b11419989645b642a9669c9,
title = "Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews",
abstract = "Considering transtibial amputation (TTA) rehabilitation costs and complexity, high-quality literature should inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews (SRs) suggest this is not the case. This article's purpose was to review the highest-quality evidence available to guide clinical practice for TTA regarding five prosthetic intervention areas. Six databases were searched for high-quality SRs and prospective clinical trials (randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). Reviewers screened, sorted, rated (i.e., methodologic quality, bias risk), and extracted article data. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Thirty-one references were included (25 RCTs and 6 SRs). Five topical areas emerged (alignment, feet and ankles, interface, postoperative care, pylons). Twenty-three evidence statements were supported by level 2 evidence and eight by level 1 evidence. All RCTs reported randomization and reasonable data presentation. Concealed allocation and blinding were not widely used. Mean attrition was 11{\%}. SRs included no meta-analyses. Functional level was poorly reported. Grouping feet and ankle components by functional classification enabled meta-analyses, though variance was considerable given the small sample sizes. Prosthetic interventions are generally safe for TTAs. High-quality literature enabled formulation of evidence statements to support select clinical practice areas, though quantity was lacking. Thus, numerous topics related to TTA care lack rigorous evidence. Although blinding in prosthetic research requires increased funding and effort, it could greatly improve the methodologic quality of prosthetic research.",
keywords = "Amputee, Below-knee, Immediate postoperative prosthesis, Prosthetic foot, Pylon, Residual limb, Socket, Torsion, Valgus, Varus",
author = "Highsmith, {M. Jason} and Kahle, {Jason T.} and Miro, {Rebecca M.} and Orendurff, {Michael S.} and Lewandowski, {Amanda L.} and Orriola, {John J.} and Bryce Sutton and Janos Ertl",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1682/JRRD.2015.03.0046",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "157--184",
journal = "Journal of rehabilitation R&D",
issn = "0748-7711",
publisher = "Rehabilitation Research and Development Service",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation

T2 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews

AU - Highsmith, M. Jason

AU - Kahle, Jason T.

AU - Miro, Rebecca M.

AU - Orendurff, Michael S.

AU - Lewandowski, Amanda L.

AU - Orriola, John J.

AU - Sutton, Bryce

AU - Ertl, Janos

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Considering transtibial amputation (TTA) rehabilitation costs and complexity, high-quality literature should inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews (SRs) suggest this is not the case. This article's purpose was to review the highest-quality evidence available to guide clinical practice for TTA regarding five prosthetic intervention areas. Six databases were searched for high-quality SRs and prospective clinical trials (randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). Reviewers screened, sorted, rated (i.e., methodologic quality, bias risk), and extracted article data. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Thirty-one references were included (25 RCTs and 6 SRs). Five topical areas emerged (alignment, feet and ankles, interface, postoperative care, pylons). Twenty-three evidence statements were supported by level 2 evidence and eight by level 1 evidence. All RCTs reported randomization and reasonable data presentation. Concealed allocation and blinding were not widely used. Mean attrition was 11%. SRs included no meta-analyses. Functional level was poorly reported. Grouping feet and ankle components by functional classification enabled meta-analyses, though variance was considerable given the small sample sizes. Prosthetic interventions are generally safe for TTAs. High-quality literature enabled formulation of evidence statements to support select clinical practice areas, though quantity was lacking. Thus, numerous topics related to TTA care lack rigorous evidence. Although blinding in prosthetic research requires increased funding and effort, it could greatly improve the methodologic quality of prosthetic research.

AB - Considering transtibial amputation (TTA) rehabilitation costs and complexity, high-quality literature should inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews (SRs) suggest this is not the case. This article's purpose was to review the highest-quality evidence available to guide clinical practice for TTA regarding five prosthetic intervention areas. Six databases were searched for high-quality SRs and prospective clinical trials (randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). Reviewers screened, sorted, rated (i.e., methodologic quality, bias risk), and extracted article data. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Thirty-one references were included (25 RCTs and 6 SRs). Five topical areas emerged (alignment, feet and ankles, interface, postoperative care, pylons). Twenty-three evidence statements were supported by level 2 evidence and eight by level 1 evidence. All RCTs reported randomization and reasonable data presentation. Concealed allocation and blinding were not widely used. Mean attrition was 11%. SRs included no meta-analyses. Functional level was poorly reported. Grouping feet and ankle components by functional classification enabled meta-analyses, though variance was considerable given the small sample sizes. Prosthetic interventions are generally safe for TTAs. High-quality literature enabled formulation of evidence statements to support select clinical practice areas, though quantity was lacking. Thus, numerous topics related to TTA care lack rigorous evidence. Although blinding in prosthetic research requires increased funding and effort, it could greatly improve the methodologic quality of prosthetic research.

KW - Amputee

KW - Below-knee

KW - Immediate postoperative prosthesis

KW - Prosthetic foot

KW - Pylon

KW - Residual limb

KW - Socket

KW - Torsion

KW - Valgus

KW - Varus

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964043414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964043414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1682/JRRD.2015.03.0046

DO - 10.1682/JRRD.2015.03.0046

M3 - Article

C2 - 27149143

AN - SCOPUS:84964043414

VL - 53

SP - 157

EP - 184

JO - Journal of rehabilitation R&D

JF - Journal of rehabilitation R&D

SN - 0748-7711

IS - 2

ER -