The guideline emphasizes the importance of patient education across the continuum of care (Recommendation 1). Although the content and delivery method of the education will vary depending on the phase of rehabilitation and the care setting, successful education requires a transdisciplinary team that creates a holistic approach, using concepts and methods from the multiple disciplines. Once the patient's individual educational needs are identified, then the most appropriate verbal, written, or hands-on learning method can be initiated. The CPG suggests that clinicians should provide clear advice and information on topics, such as surgical interventions, rehabilitation programs, prosthetic options, and potential outcomes for patients to make informed care decisions and develop realistic goals during each phase of their rehabilitation.9,10
Psychosocial functioning refers to the ability of the individual with limb loss to cope with the psychological and social factors that influence his/her personal relationships, work, school, and social performance. Adjustment to loss of a limb can be challenging and patients may experience depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. The CPG emphasizes the performance of routine, periodic assessments during each phase of care that include inquiries into mental health concerns, social functioning, spiritual beliefs, and coping mechanisms (Recommendation 2). Many of these issues can be addressed by the transdisciplinary rehabilitation team with referral to a mental health specialist as indicated. Relevant VA/DoD CPGs are available for patients at risk for suicide, major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress and acute stress reaction, or substance use disorder.11–14
Two recommendations in this section relate to pain management. The first emphasizes that although pain is a subjective and individual experience, when possible, it should be assessed with standardized and validated tools. These assessments should include characteristics, such as location, intensity, character, duration, timing, and aggravating factors or triggers.15 Equally important to measuring the intensity of pain is to consider the effects of pain on a patient's function. The pain types commonly encountered after LLA include, but are not limited to, residual limb pain including neuropathic pain, phantom limb pain and sensation, other visceral, or musculoskeletal pains, as well as pre-existing pain syndromes or comorbidities. Successful pain management postamputation promotes enhanced recovery, higher patient satisfaction, and lower cost of care.
The guideline also recommends offering a multimodal, transdisciplinary individualized approach to pain management throughout all rehabilitation phases (Recommendation 4). There are multiple pharmacological and nonpharmacological options for treating pain and the pain management approach should include transitioning to a nonnarcotic pharmacological regimen combined with physical, psychological, and mechanical modalities.16 Variation in patient preference and response to treatments requires consideration for frequent adjustments to interventions. In addition to the standard long-term harms from chronic opioid therapy, sedation and balance issues from opioids may impede the rehabilitation progress in patients with LLA.
The guideline workgroup found strong evidence to support a recommendation for providers to consider the patient's birth sex and self-identified sex identity in development of treatment plans (Recommendation 5). Although most individuals with amputation in the United States are males, it is estimated that up to 35% of this population are females.2 There are significant differences between male and female birth sex patients in areas, such as successful prosthesis fitting, time in rehabilitation, use of coping self-statements, and pain catastrophizing.17–19 The evidence reflects that women with peripheral arterial disease are at greater risk for compromise in daily functioning, have poorer quality of life, and more often present with critical limb ischemia and higher levels of arterial lesions, resulting in more proximal level amputation.20
The early involvement of family members and contact with other patients with amputations is important for the patient's psychological adjustment (Recommendation 6).21 This support should be maintained throughout the rehabilitation process. The Commission on the Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) Amputation Specialty Program requirements are consistent with research literature suggesting that peer visits work best when the age, sex, and amputation level are considered and matched.22,23 Involvement in some type of support program can be beneficial for both the patient and the family/caregiver.22 Although initial introductory visits between a new patient and the peer visitor are best done in person, follow-up visits or contact for patients who are not within a reasonable distance from a peer center can use other forms of communication to broaden the patient's access to a peer visitor or support group.
Perioperative Phase (Recommendations 7–14)
The perioperative recommendations (Recommendations 7–14) center around the care provided immediately before and after amputation surgery. Based on the available evidence, the guideline suggests that before surgery the patient, caregiver and rehabilitation team engage in shared decision-making about residual limb length, amputation level, and rehabilitation goals (Recommendation 7). Although long-term functional outcomes have favored more distal amputations,8,24,25 potential advantages should be weighed against negative surgical, componentry, and risk considerations. With insufficient evidence to recommend one surgical amputation procedure over another (Recommendation 8), preoperative shared decision- making and a transdisciplinary team approach will help the clinical care team meet the goals of a well-shaped and well-healed postsurgical limb allowing for the initiation of prosthesis use.
The evidence suggests the use of a rigid or semirigid postsurgical dressing to promote healing and earlier prosthesis use after transtibial amputation (Recommendation 9). Research shows that these removable dressings may reduce acute postamputation edema, healing and hospitalization time, wound infection rate, and time to prosthetic fitting when compared with soft elastic dressings.26–28 Rigid postoperative dressings are preferred in situations where limb protection is a priority. Limb protection, infection risk and need to inspect the incision site and skin, and other individual patient factors must be considered in the selection of dressing type.
Cognitive function has the potential to influence many aspects of amputation rehabilitation including compliance, prosthetic fitting success, independence, falls, and mortality rates. Performing cognitive screening before establishing rehabilitation goals allows the rehabilitation team to determine the most appropriate prosthetic technology (Recommendation 10). Different executive functions are predictive of prosthesis use, mobility, and locomotion, and dementia is predictive of increased mortality.29 The suggested initial screening within the guideline may indicate the need for more extensive or continued cognitive testing.
The evidence also suggests that patients in the perioperative phase of rehabilitation receive appropriate durable medical equipment and assistive technology (Recommendation 11). There is some research support for the use of residual limb positioning devices to prevent contractures and control edema in the residual limb.30–32 The strength of this recommendation is enhanced by the fact that the potential benefits of prescribing durable medical equipment and assistive technology early in the rehabilitation process likely outweigh potential harm. The guideline (Recommendation 12) also suggests that postsurgical treatment occur in an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. Inpatient rehabilitation facility patients have been found to have improved quality of life, better ambulation and confidence, overall mobility, and increased prosthesis use with less associated pain. If safety is the sole concern, evidence supports rehabilitation in either an inpatient rehabilitation facility or a skilled nursing facility.33–35
Initiating mobility training as soon as possible postamputation may promote functional independence, strength, cardiovascular fitness, and bone health (Recommendation 13).31,36 This may include an early weight-bearing prosthesis although evidence on the most appropriate type of device to use at this stage has not been established based on the performed literature review. Use of a device may allow earlier gait re-education, accelerated residual limb healing, reduced complications, facilitation of prosthesis fitting, and a psychosocial benefit. Risk factors must be considered in determining the timing for mobility training.37
With strong evidence support, the guideline recommends maximizing function through rehabilitation interventions (Recommendation 14). This includes open and closed kinetic chain exercises and progressive resistance to improve gait, mobility, strength, cardiovascular fitness, and activities of daily living. The rehabilitation program should be individualized for intensity, part- to whole-resisted gait training, and functional gait training to improve self-selected walking speed.38–40 The patient focus group highlighted the importance of real-world training with more robust rehabilitation addressing complex situations, such as walking through an airport, that allow true community reintegration. The focus group also emphasized training in the performance of functional activities of daily living and self-care, with and without the prosthesis, to maximize confidence and independence. Providers should discuss all aspects of functional activities of daily living, including activities such as intimacy with a significant other, and use well-rounded training interventions to maximize patient comfort, confidence, and functionality.
Preprosthetic Phase (Recommendation 15)
The guideline suggests offering microprocessor knee (MPK) units over non-MPK units for ambulation to reduce fall risk and maximize patient satisfaction (Recommendation 15). Falling is a major issue in patients with transfemoral amputations. The CPG recognizes that MPKs have been shown to reduce fall risk and maximize patient satisfaction.41,42 The prescription of MPKs over non-MPKs may also improve an individual's ability to walk faster on level ground, uneven surfaces and downhill.41 For individuals with complex medical conditions affecting balance as well as the geriatric population, MPKs may decrease stumbles and falls.41
There is insufficient evidence to support using one type of MPK over another. The provider and patient should consider the many characteristics of each type of knee, especially the potential impact on the patient's functional level. Some knees may be best suited for limited community ambulation, whereas others are more appropriate for higher levels of activity.27,43,44 Considerations also include the mechanism and ease of charging the MPK and the knee's default mode (locked knee or free swing) when the power source is depleted. For the active user additional options include activity modes and waterproof/water resistance features.
There are a large number and wide range of options with prosthetic components, such as suspension type, interface materials, and prosthetic feet. These options often have markedly different characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Based on the research findings, the panel workgroup concluded that there are inconclusive outcome differences in socket design, prosthetic foot categories, and advantages/disadvantages of various suspension and interface types. Each component of a prosthetic prescription should be carefully selected based on the user's capabilities and anticipated compliance as well as the residual limb's integrity and shape. Patient-desired outcomes, goals, and the compatibility of the entire prosthetic system should also be considered when prescribing prosthetic components.
Prosthetic Training Phase (Recommendations 16–18)
The CPG recommends use of valid, reliable, and responsive functional outcome measures, including the Comprehensive High-level Activity Mobility Predictor, Amputee Mobility Predictor, 10-meter walk test, and 6-min walk test (Recommendation 16). Using validated objective outcome measures throughout rehabilitation yields direct feedback to providers and patients regarding intervention efficacy and progress toward functional goals. When choosing from the numerous outcome measures available, it is important to first select a measure that evaluates the construct of interest.45,46 Additional high priority factors are the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the measure. Other issues to consider include the administrative burden to the patient and provider, the level of measurement, availability of reference or normative values, and cutoff scores.
Outcome measures may be population specific47,48 or may have more general utility. The Amputee Mobility Predictor is a physical performance measure of functional mobility that takes approximately 15 mins to administer. It provides ordinal scale data and has evidence of validity, reliability, and responsiveness.49,50 Reference values are available to understand a patient's score relative to others of comparable etiology and functional level. If a clinician needs a more direct assessment of walking ability, other outcome measures may be more appropriate, including the 10-meter walk test, the 2- or 6-min walk test, or others.49,50 The latter tests are not population specific and have some reference data available from patients with amputations and other diagnostic groups.49–53Table 4 provides supplemental information regarding additional measures of physical functional performance with evidence of reliability and validity in the LLA population.
The guideline suggests the use of a combination of measures, both physical functional performance and patient reported, with acceptable psychometric properties to assess functional outcomes (Recommendation 17). Rehabilitative care requires assessment of multiple domains including walking ability, balance, adjustment to prosthetic device use, quality of life, and others.27,44 In addition to selecting outcome measures that are valid, reliable, and responsive, comparably robust measures from the patient's perspective are important to include. Some examples are the Locomotor Capabilities Index54 and the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale,55 both of which assess the patient's perception of their mobility capabilities. It may also be important to include an assessment of the patient's perceptions regarding their confidence with balance, in which case the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale was determined be useful.56
In addition to the measures previously described, other domains may require assessment, such as the location, severity, and type of pain (e.g., low back, joint, phantom limb). Other phenomena that may require assessment include less objective, patient-reported events, such as the number of stumbles, semicontrolled falls, or uncontrolled falls. This assessment may be included as part of a specific instrument or can be asked separately.43,44,57 The CPG suggests that multiple outcome measures may be necessary to thoroughly assess the patient and track progress.
The guideline recognizes factors that are associated with poorer outcomes, such as smoking, medical comorbidities, psychosocial functioning, and pain (Recommendation 18). Evaluations and interventions that address a patient's comorbidities can both improve overall health and functional outcomes postamputation.58,59 Comorbidities, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,60 congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction within the previous 6 mos, renal disease on dialysis,61 a positive “do not resuscitate” status, and a generally low functional status are associated with an increased mortality rate after amputation surgery.58 There is also an association between the presence of comorbidities and functional outcomes after amputation.59 Vascular disease and smoking as well as overall health status can cause skin issues, impede postoperative wound healing, and lead to recurrence of wounds after surgery.60 This can delay prosthetic fitting, the patient's ability to function with the device, and the patient's gait and pain levels resulting in decreased functional status and patient satisfaction. Chronic low back pain, obesity, and fluctuations in weight are issues that are other issues often experienced after LLA and should be monitored.62–64
This CPG represents the most recent publication in a series of 3 guidelines related to the rehabilitation care of persons with amputations. Although there has been methodology evolution over time, all of these CPGs have used a structured development process to assure high-quality and clinically relevant products. One of the limitations of the CPG development process is that the literature review was restricted to only 10 key questions and 10-yr period. The development of this type of CPG is also very time-consuming and labor-intensive. This large investment in resources may be hard to replicate either within or outside of the federal sector in the future.
The VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Rehabilitation of Individuals with Lower Limb Amputation is based on the best available evidence from the past 10 yrs and provides 18 recommendations addressing key clinical care questions related to LLA rehabilitation. The guideline provides a framework for managing persons with LLA in the context of their individual needs and preferences. Adoption and implementation of these recommendations have the potential to enhance the quality and consistency of rehabilitation care for this population.
2. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al: Estimating the prevalence of limb loss
in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
3. Webster JB, Poorman CE, Cifu DX: Guest editorial: Department of Veterans Affairs Amputations System of Care: 5 years of accomplishments and outcomes. J Rehabil Res Dev
4. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General: Healthcare inspection; prosthetic limb care in VA facilities. March 8, 2012 (Report No. 11–02138–116)
5. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, et al: (eds): in: Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust
. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2011
6. Newberry SJ, Ahmadzai N, Motala A, et al: AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. Surveillance and Identification of Signals for Updating Systematic Reviews: Implementation and Early Experience
. Rockville (MD), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2013
8. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al: GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol
9. Esquenazi A, Meier RH 3rd: Rehabilitation
in limb deficiency. 4. Limb amputation
. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
10. Pandian G, Kowalske K: Daily functioning of patients with an amputated lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res
15. Jensen MP, Smith DG, Ehde DM, et al: Pain site and the effects of amputation
pain: further clarification of the meaning of mild, moderate, and severe pain. Pain
16. Brunelli S, Morone G, Iosa M, et al: Efficacy of progressive muscle relaxation, mental imagery, and phantom exercise training on phantom limb: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
17. Davie-Smith F, Paul L, Nicholls N, et al: The impact of gender, level of amputation
and diabetes on prosthetic fit rates following major lower extremity amputation
. Prosthet Orthot Int
18. Singh R, Hunter J, Philip A, et al: Gender differences in amputation
outcome. Disabil Rehabil
19. Hirsh AT, Dillworth TM, Ehde DM, et al: Sex differences in pain and psychological functioning in persons with limb loss
. J Pain
20. Lefebvre KM, Chevan J: Sex disparities in level of amputation
. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
21. Jelić M, Eldar R: Rehabilitation
following major traumatic amputation
of the lower limbs. A review. Physical Rehab Med
22. Purk JK: Support groups: why do people attend? Rehabil Nurs
23. Commission on the Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities: CARF Accreditation. Available at: http://www.carf.org/home/
Accessed June 1, 2019
24. Vogel TR, Petroski GF, Kruse RL: Impact of amputation
level and comorbidities on functional status of nursing home residents after lower extremity amputation
. J Vasc Surg
25. Hoshino J, Ubara Y, Ohara K, et al: Changes in the activities of daily living (ADL) in relation to the level of amputation
of patients undergoing lower extremity amputation
for arteriosclerosis obliterans (ASO). Circ J
26. Smith DG, McFarland LV, Sangeorzan BJ, et al: Postoperative dressing and management strategies for transtibial amputations: a critical review. J Rehabil Res Dev
27. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al: Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation
: systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews. J Rehabil Res Dev
28. Mooney V, Harvey JP Jr., McBride E, et al: Comparison of postoperative stump management: plaster vs. soft dressings. J Bone Joint Surg Am
29. Coffey L, O'Keefe F, Gallagher P, et al: Cognitive functioning in persons with lower limb amputations: a review. Disabil Rehabil
30. Spiliotopoulou G, Atwal A: Is occupational therapy practice for older adults with lower limb amputations evidence-based? A systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int
31. Rau B, Bonvin F, de Bie R: Short-term effect of physiotherapy rehabilitation
on functional performance of lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int
32. White E: Wheelchair stump boards and their use with lower limb amputees. Brit J Occup Ther
33. Roth EV, Pezzin LE, McGinley EL, et al: Prosthesis use and satisfaction among persons with dysvascular lower limb amputations across postacute care discharge settings. PM R
34. Sauter CN, Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR: Functional outcomes of persons who underwent dysvascular lower extremity amputations: effect of postacute rehabilitation
setting. Am J Phys Med Rehabil
35. Czerniecki JM, Turner AP, Williams RM, et al: The effect of rehabilitation
in a comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation
unit on mobility outcome after dysvascular lower extremity amputation
. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
36. Cumming J, Barr S, Howe TE: Prosthetic rehabilitation
for older dysvascular people following a unilateral transfemoral amputation
. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
37. Mazari FA, Mockford K, Barnett C, et al: Hull early walking aid for rehabilitation
of transtibial amputees-randomized controlled trial (HEART). J Vasc Surg
38. Wong CK, Ehrlich JE, Ersing JC, et al: Exercise programs to improve gait performance in people with lower limb amputation
: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int
39. Imam B, Miller WC, Finlayson H, et al: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility of the Wii Fit for improving walking in older adults with lower limb amputation
. Clin Rehabil
40. Sahay P, Prasad SK, Anwer S, et al: Efficacy of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation techniques versus traditional prosthetic training for improving ambulatory function in transtibial amputees. Hong Kong Physiother J
41. Kannenberg A, Zacharias B, Probsting E: Benefits of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees to limited community ambulators: systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev
42. Samuelsson KA, Toytari O, Salminen AL, et al: Effects of lower limb prosthesis on activity, participation, and quality of life: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int
43. Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, et al: Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
44. Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL: Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. J Rehabil Res Dev
45. Condie E, Scott H, Treweek S: Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: a review of the literature 1995 to 2005. JPO
46. Stevens PM: Clinimetric properties of timed walking events among patient populations commonly encountered in orthotic and prosthetic rehabilitation
. J Prosthet Orthot
47. Gailey RS, Gaunaurd IA, Raya MA, et al: Development and reliability testing of the comprehensive high-level activity mobility predictor (CHAMP) in male service members with traumatic lower-limb loss
. J Rehabil Res Dev
48. Gailey RS, Scoville C, Gaunaurd IA, et al: Construct validity of comprehensive high-level activity mobility predictor (CHAMP) for male service members with traumatic lower-limb loss
. J Rehabil Res Dev
49. Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, et al: The Amputee Mobility Predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
50. Resnik L, Borgia M: Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther
51. Lang JT, Kassan TO, Devaney LL, et al: Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change for the 10-meter walk test in older adults with Parkinson's disease. J Geriatr Phys Ther
52. Brooks D, Hunter JP, Parsons J, et al: Reliability of the two-minute walk test in individuals with transtibial amputation
. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
53. Tekin L, Safaz Y, Göktepe AS, et al: Comparison of quality of life and functionality in patients with traumatic unilateral below knee amputation
and salvage surgery. Prosthet Orthot Int
54. Franchignoni F, Orlandini D, Ferriero G, et al: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Locomotor Capabilities Index in adults with lower-limb amputation
undergoing prosthetic training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
55. Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G, et al: Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputations: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire. J Rehabil Med
56. Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M: Psychometric properties of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale among individuals with a lower-limb amputation
. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
57. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Bongiorni DR, et al: Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-Leg for transfemoral amputees: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int
58. Hasanadka R, McLafferty RB, Moore CJ, et al: Predictors of wound complications following major amputation
for critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg
59. Sinha R, van den Heuvel WJ, Arokiasamy P: Adjustments to amputation
and an artificial limb in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int
Keywords:Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Amputation; Rehabilitation; Clinical Practice Guideline; Transdisciplinary; Limb Loss