Objective: To investigate in a pilot study the use of extended walking times as an objective method of distinguishing differences in outcome in lower limb amputees.
Setting: Sixteen lower limb amputees attending the prosthetic clinic.
Method: Patients were asked to walk 100 m, turning every 20 m, using their usual walking aids and prostheses at their chosen walking speed. Demographic details and modified Stanmore/Harold Wood mobility grades, walking aids used and discomfort were recorded. Time to walk each 20 m up to 100 m was recorded. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient.
Results: There was a wide age range and differing causes of amputation. Five out of 16 subjects failed to complete 100 m and these had the slowest 20 and 40-m times. The mean time to walk 40 m was 41 seconds for those who were able to complete 100 m and 144 seconds for those who could not complete 100 m. All those with modified Stanmore/Harold Wood mobility grades less than four failed to complete 100 m. There was a high correlation between 20-, 40-, 60-, 80 and 100-m times and mobility grades, which was statistically significant, and between 20-, 40-, 60-, 80 and 100-m times.
Conclusion: Forty-metre walking time can differentiate between those of mobility grades 4b–6 and those with lower mobility grades who are unable to walk significantly outside.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Melchiorre PJ, Findley T, Boda W.Functional outcome and co-morbidity indexes in the rehabilitation of the traumatic versus the vascular unilateral lower limb amputee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1996; 75(1): 9–14.
2.
Hanspal RS, Fisher K, Chakrabarty BK, Morton M, Roberts A.Mobility grades in amputee rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil1991; 5: 344-344.
3.
Treweek SP, Condie ME. Three measures of functional outcome for lower limb amputees: a retrospective review. Prosthet Orthot Int1998; 22(3): 178–185.
Collin C, Wade D, Cochrane G.Functional outcome of lower limb amputees with peripheral vascular disease. Clin Rehabil1992; 6: 13–21.
6.
Pohjolainen T, Alaranta H, Karkkainen M.Prosthetic use and functional and social outcome following major lower limb ampuation. Prosthet Orthot Int14: 75–79.
7.
Waters Robert L.The energy expenditure of amputee gait. In: Bowker J, Michael J eds. Atlas of limb prosthetics: surgical, prosthetic and rehabilitation principles, second edition. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Mosby Year Book, 381–387.
8.
Czerniecki JM. Rehabilitation in limb de” ciency 1. Gait and motion analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: S3–S7.
9.
van Herk I, Arendzen J, Rispens P.Ten-metre walk, with or without a turn?Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 30–35.
