ORIGINAL PAPER
Isokinetic versus conventional exercise for prosthesis adaptability and gait in traumatic above-knee amputees: study protocol
,
 
,
 
,
 
,
 
,
 
,
 
,
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Division of Trauma Surgery and Critical Care, JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, India
 
2
Department of Orthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
 
3
Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi, India
 
 
Submission date: 2024-11-21
 
 
Acceptance date: 2025-09-01
 
 
Online publication date: 2026-06-09
 
 
Corresponding author
Sagar Sushma   

Division of Trauma Surgery and Critical Care, JPNATC, AIIMS, Ring Rd, Raj Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi 110029, India
 
 
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Injuries to extremities following trauma are on the rise in developing countries. Often this results in the loss of either the upper or lower limb, in contrast to the Western world, where peripheral vascular disease is the more common cause of amputation. The majority of these patients are the young breadwinners of their families, so early rehabilitation with a good exercise protocol and compliance with the use of a prosthesis can improve the overall outcome in these amputees. The study aims to compare the effects of isokinetic and conventional exercises after the application of immediate postoperative prostheses (IPOP) in relation to prosthesis adaptability and gait in above-knee amputees following trauma. This study will conduct a randomised controlled trial involving patients who are scheduled to undergo above-knee amputation due to trauma, provided they have no additional injuries that could limit their mobility after the application of immediate postoperative prostheses (IPOP). The study will compare two exercise protocols: isokinetic and conventional. Amputee patients in both groups will be tested for strength with a Biodex System 4, their gait pattern with a BTS Smart-DX, and how well they accept the prosthesis using the Questionnaire for Persons with Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) at 6 until 12 weeks following amputation.
REFERENCES (18)
1.
Abang IE. Indications and pattern of limb amputation: a tertiary hospital experience, South-South, Nigeria. Recent Adv Biol Med. 2018;4(2018):41–5.doi: 10.18639/RABM.2018.04.729264.
 
2.
McDonald CL, Westcott-McCoy S, Weaver MR, Haagsma J, Kartin D. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021;45(2):105–14; doi: 10.1177/0309364620972258.
 
3.
Mir N, Hussain A, Moorthy AS, Khatri G, Sagar S. Amputation clinic: Need for an Umbrella care approach in developing nations. Physiotherapy. 2021;15(1):37–42; 10.4103/PJIAP.PJIAP_57_20.
 
4.
Demir Y, Aydemir K. Gülhane lower extremity amputee rehabilitation protocol: a nationwide, 123-year experience. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;66(4):373; doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2020.7637.
 
5.
Ülger Ö, Şahan TY, Çelik SE. A systematic literature review of physiotherapy and rehabilitation approaches to lower-limb amputation. Physioth Theory Pract. 2018;34(11):821–34; doi: 10.1080/09593985.2018.1425938.
 
6.
Atay IM, Turgay O, Atay T. The prevalence of prosthesis use with the effects on body image, depression, anxiety and self-esteem in lower-extremity amputations. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;60(3):184–8; doi: 10.5152/tftrd.2014.56767.
 
7.
Cabri JM, Clarys JP. Isokinetic exercise in rehabilitation. Appl Ergon. 1991;22(5):295–8; doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(91)90383-s.
 
8.
Moirenfeld I, Ayalon M, Ben Sira D, Isakov E. Isokinetic strength and endurance of the knee extensors and flexors in transtibial amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24(3):221–5; doi: 10.1080/03093640008726551.
 
9.
Rush MN, Hagin E, Nguyen J, Lujan V, Dutton RA, Salas C. Design for transtibial modifiable socket for immediate postoperative prosthesis. Uni N M Orthop Res J. 2019;8:93–7.
 
10.
Tatarelli A, Serrao M, Varrecchia T, Fiori L, Draicchio F, Silvetti A, Conforto S, De Marchis C, Ranavolo A. Global muscle coactivation of the sound limb in gait of people with transfemoral and transtibial amputation. Sensors. 2020;20(9):2543; doi: 10.3390/s20092543.
 
11.
Hagberg K, Brånemark R, Hägg O. Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA): initial validity and reliability of a new outcome measure. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(5).
 
12.
Kuiken TA, Miller L, Lipschutz R, Huang ME. Rehabilitation of people with lower limb amputation. In: Braddom RL, Buschbacher RM, associate editors. Physical medicine and rehabilitation. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2007; pp. 282–318.
 
13.
Choo YJ, Kim DH, Chang MC. Amputation stump management: a narrative review. World J Clin Cases. 2022;10(13):3981; doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i13.3981.
 
14.
Seireg A, Arvikar RJ. The prediction of muscular load sharing and joint forces in the lower extremities during walking. J Biomech. 1975;8(2):89–102; doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(75)90089-5.
 
15.
Esquenazi A. Gait analysis in lower-limb amputation and prosthetic rehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1):153–67; doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2013.09.006.
 
16.
Nolan L. A training programme to improve hip strength in persons with lower limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(3):241–8; doi: 10.2340/16501977-0921.
 
17.
Persson BM, Liedberg E. A clinical standard of stump measurement and classification in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1983;7(1):17–24; doi: 10.3109/03093648309146710.
 
18.
Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME. Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking. J Orthop Res. 1990;8(3):383–92; doi: 10.1002/jor.1100080310.
 
eISSN:2544-4395
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top