Blatchford, Basingstoke, United Kingdom.
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 2;17(9):e0271315. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271315. eCollection 2022.
While all lower limb prosthesis walkers have a high risk of tripping and/or falling, above knee prosthesis users are reported to fall more frequently. Recognising this, engineers designed microprocessor knees (MPK) to help mitigate these risks, but to what extent these devices reduce this disparity between above and below knee users is unclear. A service review was carried out in a prosthetic limb centre regarding the frequency of trips and falls in the previous four weeks. Data from unilateral, community ambulators were extracted. Ordered logistic regressions were applied to investigate whether MPKs mitigated the increased risk of trips and falls for prosthetic knee users, compared to below knee prosthesis users. Socio-demographics (sex, age), prosthesis (prosthesis type, years of use), health (comorbidities, vision, contralateral limb status, medication), and physical function (use of additional walking aids, activity level) were included as covariates. Of the 315 participants in the analysis, 57.5% reported tripping and 20.3% reported falling. Non-microprocessor prosthetic knee (non-MPK) users were shown to trip significantly more than below knee prosthesis users (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.17-3.28). Other covariates showing a significant association included contralateral limb injuries (OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.15-3.18) and using an additional walking aid (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.13-3.50). Non-MPK users were also shown to fall significantly more than below knee prosthesis users (OR = 3.34, 95% CI = 1.73-6.45), with no other covariates showing a significant association. MPK users did not show an increased frequency of trips (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.33-1.64) or falls (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.18-2.62), compared to below knee prosthesis users. Of those who tripped at least once in the previous four weeks, those using a non-MPK (OR = 2.73, 95% CI = 1.30-5.74) presented an increased frequency of falling. These findings provide evidence to suggest that the use of MPKs reduces the difference in falls risk between above knee and below knee prosthesis users, providing justification for their provision.
虽然所有下肢假肢行走者都有绊倒和/或摔倒的高风险,但报道称膝上假肢使用者摔倒的频率更高。工程师们意识到了这一点,设计了微处理器膝盖(MPK)来帮助降低这些风险,但这些设备在多大程度上减少了膝上和膝下使用者之间的这种差异尚不清楚。在假肢中心进行了一项服务审查,调查了前四周内的绊倒和摔倒频率。从单侧、社区步行者中提取数据。应用有序逻辑回归来调查与膝下假肢使用者相比,MPK 是否减轻了假肢膝关节使用者绊倒和摔倒的风险增加。将社会人口统计学(性别、年龄)、假肢(假肢类型、使用年限)、健康(合并症、视力、对侧肢体状况、药物)和身体功能(使用额外的助行器、活动水平)作为协变量纳入分析。在分析的 315 名参与者中,57.5%报告绊倒,20.3%报告摔倒。与膝下假肢使用者相比,非微处理器假肢膝关节(非 MPK)使用者明显更容易绊倒(OR=1.96,95%CI=1.17-3.28)。其他显示显著关联的协变量包括对侧肢体损伤(OR=1.91,95%CI=1.15-3.18)和使用额外助行器(OR=1.99,95%CI=1.13-3.50)。与膝下假肢使用者相比,非 MPK 使用者摔倒的比例也明显更高(OR=3.34,95%CI=1.73-6.45),没有其他协变量显示显著关联。与膝下假肢使用者相比,MPK 使用者的绊倒(OR=0.74,95%CI=0.33-1.64)或摔倒(OR=0.34,95%CI=0.18-2.62)频率没有增加。在过去四周至少绊倒一次的患者中,使用非 MPK(OR=2.73,95%CI=1.30-5.74)的患者摔倒频率增加。这些发现提供了证据表明,使用 MPK 降低了膝上和膝下假肢使用者跌倒风险之间的差异,为提供 MPK 提供了依据。