Cargando…

Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Enhancing the quality of life of people with a lower limb amputation is critical in prosthetic development and rehabilitation. Yet, no overview is available concerning the impact of passive, quasi-passive and active ankle–foot prostheses on quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To systematically r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lathouwers, Elke, Díaz, María Alejandra, Maricot, Alexandre, Tassignon, Bruno, Cherelle, Claire, Cherelle, Pierre, Meeusen, Romain, De Pauw, Kevin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9840272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36639655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01128-5
_version_ 1784869607188725760
author Lathouwers, Elke
Díaz, María Alejandra
Maricot, Alexandre
Tassignon, Bruno
Cherelle, Claire
Cherelle, Pierre
Meeusen, Romain
De Pauw, Kevin
author_facet Lathouwers, Elke
Díaz, María Alejandra
Maricot, Alexandre
Tassignon, Bruno
Cherelle, Claire
Cherelle, Pierre
Meeusen, Romain
De Pauw, Kevin
author_sort Lathouwers, Elke
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Enhancing the quality of life of people with a lower limb amputation is critical in prosthetic development and rehabilitation. Yet, no overview is available concerning the impact of passive, quasi-passive and active ankle–foot prostheses on quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the therapeutic benefits of performing daily activities with passive, quasi-passive and active ankle–foot prostheses in people with a lower limb amputation. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus and Pedro databases, and backward citations until November 3, 2021. Only English-written randomised controlled trials, cross-sectional, cross-over and cohort studies were included when the population comprised individuals with a unilateral transfemoral or transtibial amputation, wearing passive, quasi-passive or active ankle–foot prostheses. The intervention and outcome measures had to include any aspect of quality of life assessed while performing daily activities. We synthesised the participants’ characteristics, type of prosthesis, intervention, outcome and main results, and conducted risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42021290189. RESULTS: We identified 4281 records and included 34 studies in total. Results indicate that quasi-passive and active prostheses are favoured over passive prostheses based on biomechanical, physiological, performance and subjective measures in the short-term. All studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Compared to passive ankle–foot prostheses, quasi-passive and active prostheses significantly enhance the quality of life. Future research should investigate the long-term therapeutic benefits of prosthetics devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9840272
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98402722023-01-15 Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review Lathouwers, Elke Díaz, María Alejandra Maricot, Alexandre Tassignon, Bruno Cherelle, Claire Cherelle, Pierre Meeusen, Romain De Pauw, Kevin J Neuroeng Rehabil Review BACKGROUND: Enhancing the quality of life of people with a lower limb amputation is critical in prosthetic development and rehabilitation. Yet, no overview is available concerning the impact of passive, quasi-passive and active ankle–foot prostheses on quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the therapeutic benefits of performing daily activities with passive, quasi-passive and active ankle–foot prostheses in people with a lower limb amputation. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus and Pedro databases, and backward citations until November 3, 2021. Only English-written randomised controlled trials, cross-sectional, cross-over and cohort studies were included when the population comprised individuals with a unilateral transfemoral or transtibial amputation, wearing passive, quasi-passive or active ankle–foot prostheses. The intervention and outcome measures had to include any aspect of quality of life assessed while performing daily activities. We synthesised the participants’ characteristics, type of prosthesis, intervention, outcome and main results, and conducted risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42021290189. RESULTS: We identified 4281 records and included 34 studies in total. Results indicate that quasi-passive and active prostheses are favoured over passive prostheses based on biomechanical, physiological, performance and subjective measures in the short-term. All studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Compared to passive ankle–foot prostheses, quasi-passive and active prostheses significantly enhance the quality of life. Future research should investigate the long-term therapeutic benefits of prosthetics devices. BioMed Central 2023-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9840272/ /pubmed/36639655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01128-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Lathouwers, Elke
Díaz, María Alejandra
Maricot, Alexandre
Tassignon, Bruno
Cherelle, Claire
Cherelle, Pierre
Meeusen, Romain
De Pauw, Kevin
Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review
title Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review
title_full Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review
title_fullStr Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review
title_short Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review
title_sort therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9840272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36639655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01128-5
work_keys_str_mv AT lathouwerselke therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview
AT diazmariaalejandra therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview
AT maricotalexandre therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview
AT tassignonbruno therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview
AT cherelleclaire therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview
AT cherellepierre therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview
AT meeusenromain therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview
AT depauwkevin therapeuticbenefitsoflowerlimbprosthesesasystematicreview