Objective: To explore the relationships between weight-bearing, pain and walking velocity in the first four weeks of prosthetic training.
Subjects: Consecutively referred transtibial amputees (n = 27).
Design: Longitudinal study.
Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation centre.
Interventions: Measurements of static weight-bearing (SWB), perceived pain during the SWB test and self-selected walking velocity (VEL) were taken at entry, and at four weeks into the prosthetic training programme. Path analysis was conducted using a series of linear regression analyses to determine predictors of walking velocity at week 4.
Results: Significant improvements from week 1 to week 4 were found in SWB, reported pain and velocity. SWB at week 4, when coupled with age, predicted 66% of the variance in walking velocity at week 4. Pain did not directly predict velocity. However, SWB at entry and perceived pain at week 4 predicted 56% of the variance in SWB at week 4.
Conclusions: These analyses suggested a model in which SWB and age were both significantly related to velocity, and further, that pain played a role in velocity through a relationship mediated by its direct effect on SWB. Unlike age, SWB is a predictor of velocity that might be altered through pain reduction, wound-healing and rehabilitative interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Hubbard WA, McElroy GK. Benchmark data for elderly, vascular trans-tibial amputees after rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int1994; 18: 142–149.
2.
Richards CL, Malouin F, Dumas F, Tardiff D. Gait velocity as an outcome measure of locomotor recovery after stroke. In: Craik RL, Oatis CA eds. Gait analysis theory and application. St. Louis: Mosby, 1995: 355–364.
3.
Powers CM, Boyd LA, Fontaine CA, Perry J. The influence of lower-extremity muscle force in gait characteristics in individuals with below-knee amputations secondary to vascular disease. Phys Ther1996; 70: 369–377.
4.
Kulkarni J, Wright S, Toole C, Morris J. Hirons R. Falls in patients with lower limb amputations: prevalence and contributing factors. Physiotherapy1996; 82: 130–136.
5.
Gailey RS, Wenger MA, Raya M et al. Energy expenditure of trans-tibial amputees during ambulation at self-selected pace. Prosthet Orthot Int1994; 18: 84–91.
6.
Czerniecki JM, Gitter AJ. Gait analysis in the amputee: has it helped the amputee or contributed to the development of improved prosthetic components?Gait Posture1996; 4: 258–268.
7.
Cutson TM, Bongiorni DR. Rehabilitation of the older lower limb amputee: a brief review. J Am Geriatr Soc1996; 44: 1388–1393.
8.
Padula PA, Friedmann LW. Amputee gait. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am1991; 2: 423–432.
9.
Gapsis JJ, Menken SA, Kelly M. Limb load monitor: evaluation of a sensory feedback device for controlled weight bearing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1982; 63: 38–41.
10.
Jones ME, Steele JR, Bashford GM, Davidson IR. Static versus dynamic prosthetic weight bearing in elderly trans-tibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int1997; 21: 100–106.
11.
Jones ME, Bashford GM, Mann JM. Weight bearing and velocity in trans-tibial and trans-femoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int1997; 21: 183–186.
12.
Silver-Thorn MB, Steege JW, Childress DS. A review of prosthetic interface stress investigations, J Rehabil Res Dev1996; 33: 253–266.
13.
Pinzur MS, Cox W, Kaiser J, Morris T, Patwardhan A, Vrbos L. The effect of prosthetic alignment on relative limb loading in persons with trans-tibial amputation: a preliminary report. J Rehabil Res Dev1995; 32: 373–378.
