ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Sensory feedback for gait in transtibial amputees: a narrative review of technologies and clinical outcomes.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding Overlapping Lower-Limb Afferent Pathways from Human Epidural Spinal Recordings.Research square · 2026Article
- Baseline PTSD and depressive symptoms predict multidimensional recovery after combat-related transtibial amputation: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The loss of somatosensory feedback in transtibial amputees contributes to gait asymmetry, increased metabolic cost, higher fall risk, and dependence on visual cues. Sensory neuroprostheses, both invasive and non-invasive, provide methods to restore aspects of this feedback and enhance functional mobility. This review combines recent findings from invasive procedures, such as intraneural electrodes, spinal cord stimulation, and agonist-antagonist myoneural constructs, with non-invasive electrotactile, mechanotactile, and vibrotactile techniques. Invasive systems offer high-quality somatotopic mapping that improves embodiment and reduces phantom limb pain but are limited by surgical risks, long-term stability issues, and scalability concerns. Non-invasive systems, especially those utilizing vibrotactile feedback, have demonstrated measurable benefits, including a 41% increase in walking speed, fewer stumbles, improved symmetry indices from approximately 60% to roughly 75%, and a 70% reduction in phantom limb pain in small clinical trials. However, most studies are limited by small sample sizes, short intervention durations, and laboratory-based testing, with inconsistent reporting of cognitive load, training doses, and real-world applicability. The analysis here highlights vibrotactile systems as the most practical near-term option for clinical use, while invasive approaches remain valuable for high-performance tasks requiring precise feedback. Future research should focus on larger, longer trials, standardized outcome reporting, and seamless integration of sensors and actuators into prosthetic sockets. Overcoming these challenges is key to developing scalable, next-generation sensory feedback systems capable of restoring natural and confident gait in transtibial amputees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.