Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

To establish if a home-based exercise and education programme is more effective than usual treatment in improving function, mobility and quality of life in people with lower limb amputation due to peripheral vascular disease.

Method:

A blocked randomized single-blinded controlled trial (RCT) with 154 participants (54 female; mean age 58) compared a home-based exercise and education programme (n = 77) with usual care (control) (n = 77). Participants were measured at baseline, immediately post intervention at three months, and after a further three months without any intervention. The outcome measures were the Barthel Index, Participation Scale, EuroQuol 5D, Modified Locomotor Capability Index and Timed Up and Go Test. Changes over time were established using generalized estimating equations and analysis of covariance, (P < 0.05)

Results:

The Participation Scale (18.73 ± 14.91 against 26.67 ± 19.14; P = 0.011), the EuroQuol5D visual analogue scale (69.10 ± 20.31 against 55.37 ± 27.67; P = 0.003), EuroQuol5D utility index (0.672 ± 0.300 against 0.532 ± 0.358; P = 0.25) and the Modified Capability Index (21.03 ± 15.79 against 15.91 ± 13.67; P = 0.034) improved in the intervention group compared with the control group at three months.

At six months, there was no difference between the groups in any of the measures except for the EuroQuol5D visual analogue scale (74.52 ± 16.14 against 66.34 ± 22.91; P = 0.033). Although there were no differences between the Timed Up and Go test at 3 (35.39 ± 32.48 against 45.08 ± 41.52; P = 0.192) and six months (28.22 ± 20.96 against 36.08 ± 36.19; P = 0.189) between the groups the intervention group was more mobile.

Conclusion:

This intervention improved function, mobility and quality of life in persons following lower limb amputation in the first three months post amputation.

Keywords

lower limb amputation peripheral vascular disease home exercise programme quality of life mobility function

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Godlwana

Stewart

Musenge

. Quality of life following a major lower limb amputation in Johannesburg, South Africa. S A J Physiother 2012; 68: 17–22.

Godlwana

Stewart

. The impact of lower limb amputation on community reintegration of a population in Johannesburg: A qualitative perspective. South African Journal of Physiotherapy 2013; 69: 48–54.

Burger

Marincek

. Return to work after lower limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 1323–1329.

Nehler

Coll

Hiatt

, et al. Functional outcomes in a contemporary series of lower limb amputations. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38: 7–14.

Hsieh

Wang

, et al. Establishing the minimal clinical important differences of the Barthel Index in Stoke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 233–238.

Finch

Brooks

Stratford

, et al. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures, a guide to enhance clinical decision making. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams& Wilkins, 2002, pp.87–89, 125–129.

Rushton

Miller

. Goal attained scaling in the rehabilitation of patients with lower-extremity amputation: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 771–775.

Norvell

Turner

Williams

, et al. Defining successful mobility after lower limb extremity amputation for complications of peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. J Vasc Surg 2011; 54: 412–419.

Czerniecki

Turner

Williams

, et al. Mobility changes in individuals with dysvascular amputation from the presurgical period to 12 months postamputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93(10): 1766–1773.

10.

Franchignoni

Orlandini

Ferriero

, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Locomotor Capabilities Index in adults with lower-limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 743–748.

11.

Larsson

Johannesson

Andersson

, et al. The Locomotor Capabilities Index: validity and reliability of the Swedish version in adults with lower limb amputation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7: 44–49.

12.

Treweek

Condie

. Three measure of functional outcome for lower limb amputees: a retrospective study. Prosthet Orthot Int 1998; 22: 178–185.

13.

Gauthier-Gagnon

Grise

. The Locomotor Capabilities Index: content validity. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas 1998; 2: 40–46.

14.

Van Brakel

Anderson

Mutatkar

, et al. The participation scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28(4): 193–203.

15.

Magasi

Post

. A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91(9 Suppl.): S17–S28.

16.

Lin

Samp

Munoz

, et al. Evaluating change using patient-reported outcome measure in knee replacement: complementary nature of the EQ-5D index and VAS scores. Euro J Health Econ 2014; 15(5): 489–496.

17.

Dawson

Boller

Doll

, et al. Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessment following foot and ankle surgery. J Bone Jt Surg 2012; 94-B: 215–221.

18.

Kontodimopoulos

Pappa

Niakas

, et al. Validity of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health 2008; 11(7): 1162–1169.

19.

Pinto

Maso

Vilela

, et al. Validation of the EuroQol quality of life questionnaire on stroke victims. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2011; 69(2B): 320–323.

20.

Resnik

Borgia

. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther 2011; 91(4): 555–565.

21.

Schoppen

Boonstra

Groothoff

, et al. The timed ‘up and go’ test: reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 825–828.

22.

Schoppen

Boonstra

Groothoff

, et al. Physical, mental, and social predictors of functional outcome in unilateral lower-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84(6): 803–811.

23.

Whyte

Niven

. Variation in phantom limb pain: results of a diary study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001; 22(5): 947–953.

24.

Robinson

Sansam

Hirst

, et al. Major lower limb amputation-what, why and how to achieve the best results. Orthop Trauma 2010; 24: 276–285.

25.

Broomhead

Dawes

Hancock

, et al. Clinical guidelines for the pre and post operative physiotherapy management of adults with lower limb amputation. London: British Association of Chartered Society of Physiotherapists in Amputee Rehabilitation, 2006.

26.

Biswas

Roy

Lenka

, et al. Energy cost and gait efficiency of below-knee amputee and normal subject with similar physical parameters & quality of life: a comparative study. Online J Health Allied Sci 2010; 9: 1–4.

27.

Mazumdar

Memtsoudis

. Beyond repeated measures ANOVA: advanced statistical methods for the analysis of longitudinal data in anesthesia research. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2012; 37: 99–105.

28.

Wiens

Zhao

. The role of intention to treat in analysis of noninferiority studies. Clin Trials 2007; 4(3): 286–291.

29.

Montori

Guyatt

. Intention-to-treat principle. Can Med Assoc 2001; 165: 1339–1341.

30.

Wegener

Mackenzie

Ephraim

, et al. Self-management improves outcomes in persons with limb loss. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90(3): 373–380.

31.

Moxey

Hofman

Hinchliffe

, et al. Delay influences outcome after lower limb amputation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Sur 2012; 44: 485–490.

32.

Fortington

Dijkers

Bosman

, et al. Change in health-related quality of life in the first 18 months after lower limb amputation: a prospective, longitudinal study. J Rehabil Med 2013; 45: 587–594.

33.

Dajpratham

Tantiniramai

Lukkanapichonchut

. Health related quality of life among the Thai people with unilateral lower limb amputation. J Med Assoc Thai 2011; 94(2): 250–255.

34.

Raya

Gailey

Fiebert

, et al. Impairment variables predicting activity limitations in an individual with lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010; 34: 73–84.

35.

Van Velzen

vanBennekom

Polomski

, et al. Physical capacity and walking ability after lower limb amputation: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20(11): 999–1016.

36.

Miller

Speechley

Deathe

. Balance confidence among people with lower limb amputation. Phys Therapy 2002; 82: 856–865.

37.

Deans

McFadyen

Rowe

. Physical activity and quality of life: a study of a lower limb amputee population. Prosthet Orthot Int 2008; 32(2): 186–200.

38.

Wong

Erlich

Ersing

, et al. Exercise programs to improve gait in people with lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2016; 40(1): 8–17.

39.

Crosbie

. Using activity diaries: some methodological issues. J Res Pract 2006; 2(1): D1.

40.

Stewart

Eales

Davis

. Effect of a telephonic intervention on the adherence of patients with hypertensions. S A J Physiother 2003; 59(1): 29–36.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.73 MB

The effect of a home exercise intervention on persons with lower limb amputations: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material