Postural control imbalance in individuals with a minor lower extremity amputation: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minor lower extremity amputations (LEA) compromise postural control and increase the risk of falls. This issue is exacerbated by conditions such as diabetes, which affect proprioception and sensorimotor mechanisms. While orthopedic devices, including prostheses and orthoses, are frequently prescribed, their specific role in restoring postural control remains underexplored. This scoping review aimed to synthesize current research on postural control in individuals with a minor LEA and to evaluate the interventions that may improve balance. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane) and grey literature, targeting studies employing biomechanics (e.g., kinetics, kinematics), functional tests (e.g., Functional Reach Test, Timed Up and Go) and self-reported assessments of balance confidence, fall risk, and physical performance. RESULTS: Fifteen articles involving 288 individuals with various levels of minor LEA were included. Increased risk of falling were evidenced by lower scores on functional balance tests, with postural deficits confirmed by biomechanical measurements in both static and dynamic conditions. Custom orthotic devices improved functional performance and biomechanical outcomes, suggesting their effectiveness in restoring balance. Prosthetic devices, such as custom prosthetic shoes, enhanced postural stability and facilitated smoother weight transitions during tasks. However, small sample sizes and inconsistent evaluation protocols, complicate understanding of their effectiveness in rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights the underestimated postural challenges experienced by individuals with a minor LEA and supports the role of orthotic and prosthetic interventions in restoring balance. High-quality research to guide clinical decision-making in this population is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".