Effects of a Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis and Physical Therapy on Function for Individuals With Transfemoral Limb Loss: Rationale, Design, and Protocol for a Multisite Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Powered ankle-foot prosthetic devices can generate net positive mechanical work during gait, which mimics the physiological ankle. However, gait deviations can persist in individuals with transfemoral limb loss because of habit or lack of rehabilitation. Prosthetic research efforts favor the design or evaluation of prosthetic componentry and rarely incorporate any type of rehabilitation, despite evidence suggesting that it is critical for minimizing gait imbalances. Given the accelerated rate of innovation in prosthetics, there is a fundamental knowledge gap concerning how individuals with transfemoral limb loss should learn to correctly use powered ankle-foot devices for maximum functional benefit. Because of the recent advances in prosthetic technology, there is also a critical unmet need to develop guidelines for the prescription of advanced prosthetic devices that incorporate both physical and psychological components to identify appropriate candidates for advanced technology. OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this investigation is to examine the roles of advanced prosthetic technology and a device-specific rehabilitative intervention on gait biomechanics, functional efficacy, and pain in individuals with transfemoral limb loss. The secondary goal is to develop preliminary rehabilitation guidelines for advanced lower limb prosthetic devices to minimize gait imbalances and maximize function and to establish preliminary guidelines for powered ankle-foot prosthetic prescription. METHODS: This prospective, multisite study will enroll 30 individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss. At baseline, participants will undergo a full gait analysis and assessment of function, neurocognition, cognitive load, subjective preferences, and pain using their current passive prosthesis. The participants will then be fitted with a powered ankle-foot device and randomized into 2 equal groups: a powered device with a device-specific rehabilitation intervention (group A) or a powered device with the current standard of practice (group B). Group A will undergo 4 weeks of device-specific rehabilitation. Group B will receive the current standard of practice, which includes basic device education but no further device-specific rehabilitation. Data collection procedures will then be repeated after 4 weeks and 8 weeks of powered ankle use. RESULTS: This study was funded in September 2017. Enrollment began in September 2018. Data collection will conclude by March 2024. The initial dissemination of results is expected in August 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The projected trends indicate that the number of individuals with limb loss will dramatically increase in the United States. The absence of effective, evidence-based interventions may make individuals with transfemoral limb loss more susceptible to increased secondary physical conditions and degenerative changes. With this expected growth, considerable resources will be required for prosthetic and rehabilitation services. Identifying potential mechanisms for correcting gait asymmetries, either through advanced prosthetic technology or rehabilitative interventions, can provide a benchmark for understanding the optimal treatment strategies for individuals with transfemoral limb loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03625921; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03625921. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/53412.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".