Advertisement

Differences in Physical Performance Measures Among Patients With Unilateral Lower-Limb Amputations Classified as Functional Level K3 Versus K4

Published:February 03, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.033

      Highlights

      • Patients with limb loss were classified by an interdisciplinary health care team.
      • K3-classified patients had worse physical performance than K4-classified peers.
      • Self-reported physical function was similar between K3- and K4-classified patients.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To determine whether differences in physical function, assessed via self-report questionnaires and physical performance tests, exist between individuals with lower-limb loss using a prosthetic device classified as a K3 versus a K4 functional level.

      Design

      Cross-sectional study.

      Setting

      A university physical therapy amputee clinic.

      Participants

      Participants (N=55) were included if they (1) were aged ≥18 years with a unilateral transfemoral or transtibial amputation; (2) were classified as K3 or K4 functional level; (3) completed all relevant outcome measures; and (4) were currently using a prosthesis.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI), Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire–Mobility Section (PEQ-MS), Timed Up and Go (TUG), 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMPPRO), and 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). K level was determined by group consensus based on a standardized clinical evaluation.

      Results

      After controlling for covariates, patients classified as K3 had slower TUG times (P=.002) and self-selected and fast gait speeds (P<.001), lower AMPPRO scores (P<.001), and walked shorter distances during the 6MWT (P=.003) when compared with patients classified as K4. No significant between-group differences for the LCI or PEQ-MS were found.

      Conclusions

      Clinicians involved in prosthetic prescription may consider including the TUG, 10MWT, AMPPRO, and 6MWT during their clinical evaluations to help differentiate between individuals of higher functional mobility. The LCI and PEQ-MS may be less useful in classifying individuals as K3 versus K4 because of a ceiling effect.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      AMPPRO (Amputee Mobility Predictor), BMI (body mass index), CI (confidence interval), LCI (Locomotor Capabilities Index), PEQ-MS (Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire–Mobility Section), 6MWT (6-Minute Walk Test), 10MWT (10-Meter Walk Test), TUG (Timed Up and Go)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ziegler-Graham K.
        • MacKenzie E.J.
        • Ephraim P.L.
        Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89: 622-629
        • Humphries M.D.
        • Brunson A.
        • Chin-Shang L.
        • et al.
        Amputation trends for patients with lower extremity ulcers due to diabetes and peripheral artery disease using statewide data.
        J Vasc Surg. 2016; 64: 1747-1755
        • Stevens P.
        • Fross N.
        • Kapp S.
        Clinically relevant outcome measures in orthotics and prosthetics.
        Acad Today. 2009; 5: A4-A11
        • Webster J.B.
        • Hakimi K.N.
        • William R.M.
        • et al.
        Prosthetic fitting, use, and satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: a prospective study.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 1493-1506
        • Schaffalitzky E.
        • Gallagher P.
        • Maclachlan M.
        • Ryall N.
        Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2011; 33: 1314-1323
        • Gailey R.S.
        • Roach K.E.
        • Applegate E.B.
        • et al.
        The Amputee Mobility Predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 613-627
        • Kaluf B.
        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.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2014; 26: 70-76
        • Kurichi J.E.
        • Kwong P.L.
        • Reker D.M.
        • et al.
        Clinical factors associated with prescription of a prosthetic limb in elderly veterans.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007; 55: 900-906
        • Fleury A.M.
        • Salih S.A.
        Rehabilitation of the older vascular amputee: a review of the literature.
        Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2013; 13: 264-273
      1. HCFA Common Procedure Coding System HCPCS 2001. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington (DC)2001 (ch 5.3)
        • Borrenpohl D.
        • Kaluf B.
        • Major M.J.
        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 Rehabil. 2016; 97: 1053-1063
        • Gaunard I.
        • Spaulding S.E.
        • Amtmann D.
        • et al.
        Use of and confidence in administering outcome measures among clinical prosthetists: results from a national survey and mixed-methods training program.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015; 39: 314-321
        • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
        Implementing the claims-based data collection requirement for outpatient therapy services—section 3005(g) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (MCTRJCA) of 2012.
        (Published 2012. Available at:)
        • Reiman M.P.
        • Manske R.C.
        The assessment of function: how is it measured? A clinical perspective.
        J Man Manip Ther. 2011; 19: 91-99
        • Hafner B.J.
        • Gaunaurd I.A.
        • Morgan S.J.
        • Amtmann D.
        • Salem R.
        • Gailey R.S.
        Construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M).
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98: 277-285
        • Heinemann A.W.
        • Connelly L.
        • Ehrlich-Jones L.
        • Fatone S.
        Outcome instruments for prosthetics.
        Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014; 25: 179-198
        • Franchignoni F.
        • Orlandini D.
        • Ferriero G.
        • Moscato T.
        Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Locomotor Capabilities Index in adults with lower-limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 85: 743-748
        • Franchignoni F.
        • Giordano A.
        • Orlandini D.
        • et al.
        Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire.
        J Rehabil Med. 2007; 39: 138-144
        • Miller W.C.
        • Deathe B.
        • Speechley M.
        Lower extremity prosthetic mobility: a comparison of 3 self-report scales.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82: 1432-1440
        • Resnik L.
        • Brogia M.
        Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error.
        Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 555-565
        • Gailey R.S.
        Predictive outcome measures versus functional outcome measures in the lower limb amputee.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2006; 18: 51-60
        • Kannenberg A.
        • Zacharias B.
        • Pröbsting E.
        Benefits of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees to limited community ambulators: systematic review.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014; 51: 1469-1496
        • Podsiadlo D.
        • Richardson S.
        The Timed “Up and Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39: 142-148
        • Schoppen T.
        • Boonstra A.
        • Groothoff J.W.
        • et al.
        The Timed “Up and Go” test: reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputations.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999; 80: 825-828
        • Deathe A.B.
        • Miller W.C.
        The L Test of Functional Mobility: measurement properties of a modified version of the Timed “Up & Go” test designed for people with lower-limb amputations.
        Phys Ther. 2005; 8: 626-635
        • Scivoletto G.
        • Tamburella F.
        • Laurenza L.
        • et al.
        Validity and reliability of the 10-m walk test and the 6-min walk test in spinal cord injury patients.
        Spinal Cord. 2011; 49: 736-740
        • Roffman C.E.
        • Buchanan J.
        • Allison G.T.
        Locomotor performance during rehabilitation of people with lower limb amputation and prosthetic nonuse 12 months after discharge.
        Phys Ther. 2016; 96: 985-994
        • Bohannon R.W.
        Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20-79 years: reference values and determinants.
        Age Ageing. 1997; 26: 15-19
        • Rikli R.
        • Jones C.
        The reliability and validity of a 6-minute walk test as a measure of physical endurance in older adults.
        J Aging Phys Act. 1998; 6: 363-375
        • Bellet R.N.
        • Francis R.L.
        • Jacob J.S.
        • et al.
        Repeated six-minute walk tests for outcome measurement and exercise prescription in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: a longitudinal study.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 1388-1394
        • Jenkins S.C.
        6-Minute walk test in patients with COPD: clinical applications in pulmonary rehabilitation.
        Physiotherapy. 2007; 93: 175-182
        • Geyh S.
        • Cieza A.
        • Schouten J.
        • et al.
        ICF core sets for stroke.
        J Rehabil Med. 2004; : 135-141
        • Dobson F.
        • Hinman R.S.
        • Roos E.M.
        • et al.
        OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis.
        Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013; 21: 1042-1052
        • Marino R.J.
        • Graves D.E.
        Metric properties of the ASIA motor score: subscales improve correlation with functional activities.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 1804-1810
        • Sibley K.M.
        • Howe T.
        • Lamb S.E.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for a core outcome set for measuring standing balance in adult populations: a consensus-based approach.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0120568
        • Miller W.C.
        • Deathe A.B.
        • Speechley M.
        Psychometric properties of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale among individuals with a lower-limb amputation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 656-661
        • Deathe A.B.
        • Wolfe D.L.
        • Devlin M.
        • et al.
        Selection of outcome measures in lower extremity amputation rehabilitation: ICF activities.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2009; 31: 1455-1473
        • Wong C.K.
        • Gibbs W.
        • Chen E.
        Use of the Houghton Scale to classify community and household walking ability in people with lower limb amputation: criterion-related validity.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 97: 1130-1136
        • Akarsu S.
        • Tekin L.
        • Safaz I.
        • et al.
        Quality of life and functionality after lower-limb amputations: comparison between uni- vs. bilateral amputee patients.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013; 37: 9-13
        • Tekin L.
        • Safaz Y.
        • Göktepe A.S.
        Comparison of quality of life and functionality in patients with traumatic unilateral below knee amputation and salvage surgery.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009; 33: 17-24
        • Christiansen C.L.
        • Fields T.
        • Lev G.
        • et al.
        Functional outcomes after the prosthetic training phase of rehabilitation after dysvascular lower extremity amputation.
        PM R. 2015; 7: 1118-1126
        • Guthold R.
        • Ono T.
        • Strong K.L.
        • Chatterji S.
        • Morabia A.
        Worldwide variability in physical activity.
        Am J Prev Med. 2008; 34: 486-494
        • Miller W.C.
        • Speechley M.
        • Deathe A.B.
        Balance confidence among people with lower-limb amputations.
        Phys Ther. 2002; 82: 856-865
        • Vivas L.L.
        • Pauley T.
        • Dilkas S.
        • Devlin M.
        Does size matter? Examining the effect of obesity on inpatient amputation rehabilitation outcomes.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2017; 39: 36-42
        • Kahle J.T.
        • Highsmith M.J.
        The implications of amputees being overweight.
        inMotion. 2008; 18 (Amputee Coalition. Available at:): 40-43
        • Reid L.
        • Thomson P.
        • Besemann M.
        • Dudek N.
        Going places: does the two-minute walk test predict the six-minute walk test in lower extremity amputees?.
        J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47: 256-261
        • Sansam K.
        • O'Connor R.J.
        • Neumann V.
        • Bhakta B.
        Clinicians' perspectives on decision making in lower limb amputee rehabilitation.
        J Rehabil Med. 2014; 46: 447-453
        • Pomeranz B.
        • Adler U.
        • Shenoy N.
        • Macaluso C.
        • Parikh S.
        Prosthetics and orthotics for the older adult with a physical disability.
        Clin Geriatr Med. 2006; 22: 377-394
        • Spruit-van Eijk M.
        • van der Linde H.
        • Buijck B.
        • Geurts A.
        • Zuidema S.
        • Koopmans R.
        Predicting prosthetic use in elderly patients after major lower limb amputation.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012; 36: 45-52
        • Salavati M.
        • Mazaheri M.
        • Khosrozadeh F.
        • Mousavi S.M.
        • Negahban H.
        • Shojaei H.
        The Persian version of Locomotor Capabilities Index: translation, reliability and validity in individuals with lower limb amputation.
        Qual Life Res. 2011; 20: 1-7
        • Larsson B.
        • Johannesson A.
        • Andersson I.H.
        • Atroshi I.
        The Locomotor Capabilities Index: validity and reliability of the Swedish version in adults with lower limb amputation.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7: 66
        • Studenski S.
        • Perera S.
        • Wallace D.
        • et al.
        Physical performance measures in the clinical setting.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003; 51: 314-322
        • Raya M.A.
        • Gailey R.
        • Gaunaurd I.A.
        • et al.
        Amputee Mobility Predictor–Bilateral: a performance-based measure of mobility for people with bilateral lower-limb loss.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013; 50: 961-968
        • Amtmann D.
        • Morgan S.J.
        • Kim J.
        • Hafner B.J.
        Health-related profiles of people with lower limb loss.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 1474-1483