Can microprocessor knees reduce the disparity in trips and falls risks between above and below knee prosthesis users?
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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-09, Vol.17 (9), p.e0271315-e0271315 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0271315 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | e0271315 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | McGrath, Michael Gray, Laura A Rek, Beata Davies, Kate C Savage, Zoe McLean, Jane Stenson, Alison Zahedi, Saeed |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0271315 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2709311275</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A715961192</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_429f02bc33794c50b4fa60c7836ef9e2</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A715961192</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-fd74d84b7c2b46478c5540d9c8a9c75c4869d1753f6ff6d0c542bb2b6f47a11b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk91v0zAQwCMEYqPwHyBhCQnBQ4sdO3b8ApoqPipNmsTXq-U4l9ZbGhdfsrH_HrcNaEF7QHlIZP_u5_PlLsueM7pgXLG3l2GInW0Xu9DBguaKcVY8yE6Z5vlc5pQ_vPN9kj1BvKS04KWUj7MTLmkhaKlOs2FpO7L1LoZdDA4QQyRXHQCSCPXggPQbILXHnY2-vyW-I330OyS2q0lj2zZxHq-QVNDfAHTEVuEaDrsVtOHm4CJJjcmDHsmAEPH90-xRCkZ4Nr5n2fePH74tP8_PLz6tlmfncyel7udNrURdikq5vBJSqNIVKe1au9JqpwonSqlrpgreyKaRNXWFyKsqr2QjlGWs4rPsxdG7awOasWJockU1ZyxPkbNsdSTqYC_NLvqtjbcmWG8OCyGujY29dy0YkeuG5pXjXGnhClqJxkrqVMklNBry5Ho3njZUW6gddH207UQ63en8xqzDtdGCa6ZZErweBTH8HAB7s_XooG1tB2E45q14-qEyoS__Qe-_3UitbbqA75qQznV7qTlTrNCSMb3Pe3EPlZ4aUmek9mp8Wp8EvJkEJKaHX_3aDohm9fXL_7MXP6bsqzvsBmzbbzC0Q-9Dh1NQHMHUt4gRmr9FZtTsp-NPNcx-Osw4Hfw360IBMA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2709311275</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can microprocessor knees reduce the disparity in trips and falls risks between above and below knee prosthesis users?</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>McGrath, Michael ; Gray, Laura A ; Rek, Beata ; Davies, Kate C ; Savage, Zoe ; McLean, Jane ; Stenson, Alison ; Zahedi, Saeed</creator><contributor>Eshraghi, Arezoo</contributor><creatorcontrib>McGrath, Michael ; Gray, Laura A ; Rek, Beata ; Davies, Kate C ; Savage, Zoe ; McLean, Jane ; Stenson, Alison ; Zahedi, Saeed ; Eshraghi, Arezoo</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271315</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36054087</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Artificial knee ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Comorbidity ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Control ; Demographics ; Employees ; Engineering and Technology ; Ethics ; Evaluation ; Falling ; Falls ; Falls (Accidents) ; Health risks ; Knee ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Microprocessors ; Prevention ; Prostheses ; Questionnaires ; Risk ; Teaching hospitals ; Technology application ; Walking</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-09, Vol.17 (9), p.e0271315-e0271315</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 McGrath et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 McGrath et al 2022 McGrath et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-fd74d84b7c2b46478c5540d9c8a9c75c4869d1753f6ff6d0c542bb2b6f47a11b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-fd74d84b7c2b46478c5540d9c8a9c75c4869d1753f6ff6d0c542bb2b6f47a11b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6365-7710 ; 0000-0003-2933-4365 ; 0000-0003-0195-970X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9439191/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9439191/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,729,782,786,866,887,2104,2930,23873,27931,27932,53798,53800</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Eshraghi, Arezoo</contributor><creatorcontrib>McGrath, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, Laura A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rek, Beata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, Kate C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, Zoe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLean, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stenson, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahedi, Saeed</creatorcontrib><title>Can microprocessor knees reduce the disparity in trips and falls risks between above and below knee prosthesis users?</title><title>PloS one</title><description>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.</description><subject>Artificial knee</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Comorbidity</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Control</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Falling</subject><subject>Falls</subject><subject>Falls (Accidents)</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Microprocessors</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Teaching hospitals</subject><subject>Technology application</subject><subject>Walking</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk91v0zAQwCMEYqPwHyBhCQnBQ4sdO3b8ApoqPipNmsTXq-U4l9ZbGhdfsrH_HrcNaEF7QHlIZP_u5_PlLsueM7pgXLG3l2GInW0Xu9DBguaKcVY8yE6Z5vlc5pQ_vPN9kj1BvKS04KWUj7MTLmkhaKlOs2FpO7L1LoZdDA4QQyRXHQCSCPXggPQbILXHnY2-vyW-I330OyS2q0lj2zZxHq-QVNDfAHTEVuEaDrsVtOHm4CJJjcmDHsmAEPH90-xRCkZ4Nr5n2fePH74tP8_PLz6tlmfncyel7udNrURdikq5vBJSqNIVKe1au9JqpwonSqlrpgreyKaRNXWFyKsqr2QjlGWs4rPsxdG7awOasWJockU1ZyxPkbNsdSTqYC_NLvqtjbcmWG8OCyGujY29dy0YkeuG5pXjXGnhClqJxkrqVMklNBry5Ho3njZUW6gddH207UQ63en8xqzDtdGCa6ZZErweBTH8HAB7s_XooG1tB2E45q14-qEyoS__Qe-_3UitbbqA75qQznV7qTlTrNCSMb3Pe3EPlZ4aUmek9mp8Wp8EvJkEJKaHX_3aDohm9fXL_7MXP6bsqzvsBmzbbzC0Q-9Dh1NQHMHUt4gRmr9FZtTsp-NPNcx-Osw4Hfw360IBMA</recordid><startdate>20220902</startdate><enddate>20220902</enddate><creator>McGrath, Michael</creator><creator>Gray, Laura A</creator><creator>Rek, Beata</creator><creator>Davies, Kate C</creator><creator>Savage, Zoe</creator><creator>McLean, Jane</creator><creator>Stenson, Alison</creator><creator>Zahedi, Saeed</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6365-7710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2933-4365</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-970X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220902</creationdate><title>Can microprocessor knees reduce the disparity in trips and falls risks between above and below knee prosthesis users?</title><author>McGrath, Michael ; Gray, Laura A ; Rek, Beata ; Davies, Kate C ; Savage, Zoe ; McLean, Jane ; Stenson, Alison ; Zahedi, Saeed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-fd74d84b7c2b46478c5540d9c8a9c75c4869d1753f6ff6d0c542bb2b6f47a11b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Artificial knee</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Comorbidity</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Control</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Falling</topic><topic>Falls</topic><topic>Falls (Accidents)</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Microprocessors</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Teaching hospitals</topic><topic>Technology application</topic><topic>Walking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McGrath, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, Laura A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rek, Beata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, Kate C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, Zoe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLean, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stenson, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahedi, Saeed</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McGrath, Michael</au><au>Gray, Laura A</au><au>Rek, Beata</au><au>Davies, Kate C</au><au>Savage, Zoe</au><au>McLean, Jane</au><au>Stenson, Alison</au><au>Zahedi, Saeed</au><au>Eshraghi, Arezoo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can microprocessor knees reduce the disparity in trips and falls risks between above and below knee prosthesis users?</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-09-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e0271315</spage><epage>e0271315</epage><pages>e0271315-e0271315</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>36054087</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0271315</doi><tpages>e0271315</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6365-7710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2933-4365</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-970X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2022-09, Vol.17 (9), p.e0271315-e0271315 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2709311275 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Artificial knee Biology and Life Sciences Comorbidity Computer and Information Sciences Control Demographics Employees Engineering and Technology Ethics Evaluation Falling Falls Falls (Accidents) Health risks Knee Medicine and Health Sciences Microprocessors Prevention Prostheses Questionnaires Risk Teaching hospitals Technology application Walking |
| title | Can microprocessor knees reduce the disparity in trips and falls risks between above and below knee prosthesis users? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T11%3A35%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20microprocessor%20knees%20reduce%20the%20disparity%20in%20trips%20and%20falls%20risks%20between%20above%20and%20below%20knee%20prosthesis%20users?&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=McGrath,%20Michael&rft.date=2022-09-02&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e0271315&rft.epage=e0271315&rft.pages=e0271315-e0271315&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0271315&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA715961192%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2709311275&rft_id=info:pmid/36054087&rft_galeid=A715961192&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_429f02bc33794c50b4fa60c7836ef9e2&rfr_iscdi=true |