Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34863213›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

Survey of transfemoral amputee experience and priorities for the user-centered design of powered robotic transfemoral prostheses.

Chiara Fanciullacci, Zach McKinney, Vito Monaco, Giovanni Milandri, Angelo Davalli, Rinaldo Sacchetti, Matteo Laffranchi, Lorenzo De Michieli, Andrea Baldoni, Alberto Mazzoni and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. A review of user needs to drive the development of lower limb prostheses.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Chiara Fanciullacci *The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Zach McKinney *The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy. z.mckinney@ieee.org.ORCID 0000-0001-7336-9050
Vito MonacoThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Giovanni MilandriRehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), via Morego, 30, 16163, Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Angelo Davalli *Centro Protesi INAIL - REPAIR Lab, Via Rabuina, 14, 40054, Vigorso di Budrio, Bologna, Italy.
Rinaldo Sacchetti *Centro Protesi INAIL - REPAIR Lab, Via Rabuina, 14, 40054, Vigorso di Budrio, Bologna, Italy.
Matteo LaffranchiRehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), via Morego, 30, 16163, Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Lorenzo De MichieliRehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), via Morego, 30, 16163, Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Andrea BaldoniThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Alberto MazzoniThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Linda PaternòThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Elisa RosiniThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Luigi RealeHealthcare Area, Fondazione ISTUD, Via Paolo Lomazzo, 19, 20154, Milano, Milan, Italy.
Fabio TrecateDept. of Physical Medicine and Functional Re-Education, Istituto Palazzolo, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Via Don Luigi Palazzolo, 21, 20149, Milano, Milan, Italy.
Simona Crea *The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Nicola Vitiello *The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Pisa), Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy.
Emanuele Gruppioni *Centro Protesi INAIL - REPAIR Lab, Via Rabuina, 14, 40054, Vigorso di Budrio, Bologna, Italy.
Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna · ITIstituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro · ITItalian Institute of Technology · ITDon Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · ITPiaggio (Italy) · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransfemoral amputees experience a complex host of physical, psychological, and social challenges, compounded by the functional limitations of current transfemoral prostheses. However, the specific relationships between human factors and prosthesis design and performance characteristics have not yet been adequately investigated. The present study aims to address this knowledge gap.

methodsA comprehensive single-cohort survey of 114 unilateral transfemoral amputees addressed a broad range of demographic and clinical characteristics, functional autonomy, satisfaction and attitudes towards their current prostheses, and design priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis, including the possibility of active assistance from a robotic knee unit. The survey was custom-developed based on several standard questionnaires used to assess motor abilities and autonomy in activities of daily living, prosthesis satisfaction, and quality of life in lower-limb amputees. Survey data were analyzed to compare the experience (including autonomy and satisfaction) and design priorities of users of transfemoral prostheses with versus without microprocessor-controlled knee units (MPKs and NMPKs, respectively), with a subsequent analyses of cross-category correlation, principal component analysis (PCA), cost-sensitivity segmentation, and unsupervised K-means clustering applied within the most cost-sensitive participants, to identify functional groupings of users with respect to their design priorities.

resultsThe cohort featured predominantly younger (< 50 years) traumatic male amputees with respect to the general transfemoral amputee population, with pronounced differences in age distribution and amputation etiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic) between MPK and NMPK groups. These differences were further reflected in user experience, with MPK users reporting significantly greater overall functional autonomy, satisfaction, and sense of prosthesis ownership than those with NMPKs, in conjunction with a decreased incidence of instability and falls. Across all participants, the leading functional priorities for an ideal transfemoral prosthesis were overall stability, adaptability to variable walking velocity, and lifestyle-related functionality, while the highest-prioritized general characteristics were reliability, comfort, and weight, with highly variable prioritization of cost according to reimbursement status. PCA and user clustering analyses revealed the possibility for functionally relevant groupings of prosthesis features and users, based on their differential prioritization of these features-with implications towards prosthesis design tradeoffs.

conclusionsThis study's findings support the understanding that when appropriately prescribed according to patient characteristics and needs in the context of a proactive rehabilitation program, advanced transfemoral prostheses promote patient mobility, autonomy, and overall health. Survey data indicate overall stability, modularity, and versatility as key design priorities for the continued development of transfemoral prosthesis technology. Finally, observed associations between prosthesis type, user experience, and attitudes concerning prosthesis ownership suggest both that prosthesis characteristics influence device acceptance and functional outcomes, and that psychosocial factors should be specifically and proactively addressed during the rehabilitation process.

Indexed as

AmputeesArtificial LimbsRobotic Surgical ProceduresActivities of Daily LivingAmputation, SurgicalHumansMaleProsthesis DesignQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUser-Centered DesignWalkingHuman factorsLower-limb prosthesesPowered prosthesisRehabilitationTransfemoral amputationUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID34863213
PMCPMC8643009
OpenAlexW4200317118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.