Instrumental Analysis of Walking in People With Osseointegrated Prostheses for Lower Extremity Amputation: Comparative Evaluation With Traditional Socket Prostheses
Instrumental Analysis of Walking in People With Osseointegrated Prostheses for Lower Extremity Amputation: Comparative Evaluation With Traditional Socket Prostheses
The currently accepted standard for rehabilitation and mobility following amputation is a socket-mounted prosthesis. Osseointegration is an alternative method that has gradually gained greater acceptance in the last 30 years. It is defined as a procedure in which a metal implant is directly anchored to the residual bone, attached to a prosthetic limb using a transcutaneous connector.
The advantages of osseointegrated prostheses over conventional socket prostheses include stable fixation, significant increases in walking ability, range of motion and control of the prosthesis, and health-related quality of life. Moreover, bodyweight distribution results more similar to physiological conditions.
No formal consensus exists for osseointegration surgery. However, based on the positive clinical experience, surgeons currently indicate this surgery for those patients who show poor tolerance of socket prostheses.
The present study investigates neuro-physiologic and mechanical parameters of walking and balance in patients with lower limb amputation and osseointegrated prostheses and in matched patients with traditional socket prostheses to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the alternative technique with respect to the present standard of care.
The primary endpoint is the investigation of the neurologic and mechanic adaptation in terms of a) kinematic and dynamic segmental analysis of walking and transfer of the body center of mass during walking; b) capacity to retain balance in response to different conditions of oscillation, tilt, and translation of a posturographic platform.
The secondary endpoint is investigating of adaptation to walking on a split-belt treadmill mounted on force sensors with the belts running at different velocities.
We hypothesize that:
Results from the present study will allow:
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
l.tesio@auxologico.it+39 02 58218151
s.scarano@auxologico.it+39 02 58218717
Milan, MI 20122, Italy
s.scarano@auxologico.it+39 02 58218717
pietro.randelli@unimi.it
alessandra.menon@asst-pini-cto.it