Diz Üstü Amputelerde Denge Değerlendirme Yöntemleri: Literatür Taraması

Öz

Amaç: Denge rehabilitasyonu, diz üstü amputasyonu bulunan bireylerde rehabilitasyon sürecinde önem taşımaktadır. Diz üstü ampute olan bireylerde denge değerlendirmesi için çeşitli yöntemler kullanılmaktadır ve literatürde en çok kullanılan yöntemlerin belirlenmesine ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, diz üstü amputasyonu bulunan bireylerde dinamik ve statik dengeyi değerlendirmek için sıklıkla kullanılan yöntemlerin gözden geçirilmesidir. Metot: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus ve Google Scholar veritabanları 2010 – 2021 (Mayıs ayına kadar) yılları arasında “(transfemoral amputasyon VEYA diz üstü ampütasyon VEYA kalça dezartikülasyonu) VE (statik denge VEYA dinamik denge VEYA postural salınım)” anahtar kelime grupları ile tarandı. Çalışmalar, Sistematik İncelemeler ve Meta-Analizler için Tercih Edilen Raporlama Öğeleri (PRISMA) çerçevesinde değerlendirildi. Çalışmaların kalitesini belirlemek için The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal değerlendirme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar: Derlemeye toplam 114 katılımcıyı içeren sekiz çalışma dahil edildi. Çalışmalardan 1'i randomize çapraz çalışma, 3'ü kesitsel çalışma, 2'si randomize olmayan çalışma, diğerleri ise kohort ve vaka kontrol çalışmalarıydı. İncelenen çalışmaların sonuçlarına göre, kuvvet platformu statik ve dinamik denge değerlendirmesinde yaygın olarak kullanılırken, statik değerlendirme için klinik testlerin de tercih edildiği görülmüştür. Tartışma: Alt ekstremite amputasyonu olan bireylerde kullanılan klinik denge ölçekleri özellikle amputasyon için geliştirilmemiştir. Ayrıca daha detaylı bir denge değerlendirmesi için teknolojik cihazlar kullanılmalıdır. Çalışmaların kalite düzeylerinin yüksek olmaması ve dahil edilen çalışma tasarımları farklı olması nedeniyle sonuçlar etkilenmiş olabilir. Gelecekteki çalışmaların yüksek popülasyonlu ve randomize kontrollü olarak tasarlanmasıyla daha doğru sonuçlara ulaşılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diz üstü amputasyonu
• kuvvet platformu
• posturografi
• berg denge testi
• süreli kalk ve yürü.

Measurement Methods of Balance Among Above-Knee Amputees: A Literature Review

Abstract

Aim: Balance rehabilitation in individuals with above-knee amputees has importance during the rehabilitation process. Various methods are used for balance assessment in individuals with above-knee amputees and determination is needed to ways that were mostly used in the literature. The aim of the study was a review of the methods utilized often to assess dynamic and static balance for individuals with above-knee amputees. Method: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched between 2010 – 2021 (up to May) years with “(transfemoral amputation OR above-knee amputation OR hip disarticulation) AND (static balance OR dynamic balance OR postural sway)” keywords groups. Studies read and analyzed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools used to determine the quality of studies. Results: Eight studies that included a total of 114 participants were selected. Among the studies, 1 were randomized cross over study, 3 were cross-sectional studies, 2 were non-randomized studies and others were cohort, and case-control studies. According to results of reviewed studies, while force plate was widely used in static and dynamic balance evaluation, clinical tests were also preferred for static evaluation. Conclusion: Clinical balance scales used in individuals with lower limb amputation are not specifically developed for amputation. In addition, technological devices should be used for a more detailed balance assessment. The results may have been affected because the quality levels of the studies were not high, and the study designs included were varied. More accurate results can be achieved by designing future studies with a high population and randomized control.

Keywords

• Above-knee amputation
• force platform
• posturography
• berg balance test
• timed up go.

Kaynakça

1. 1. Şener G, Topuz S. Alt ve Üst Ekstremite Amputelerinde Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon. In: Karaduman AA, Tunca Yılmaz Ö, eds. Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Cilt 2: Ortopedik Rehabilitasyon Pediatrik Rehabilitasyon. 1st ed. Ankara: Hipokrat Kitabevi; 2017:365-376.
2. 2. Molina CS, Faulk J. Lower Extremity Amputation. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019.
3. 3. Varma P, Stineman MG, Dillingham TR. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America Epidemiology of Limb Loss. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1).
4. 4. Van Velzen JM, Van Bennekom CAM, Polomski W, Slootman JR, Van Der Woude LHV, Houdijk H. Physical capacity and walking ability after lower limb amputation: A systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(11):999-1016. doi:10.1177/0269215506070700
5. 5. Kumar Vimal A, Kant Godiyal A, Singh U, Bhasin S, Joshi D. Transfemoral amputee’s limit of stability and sway analysis during weight shifting exercise with a vibrotactile feedback system. Somatosens Mot Res. 2019;36(1):31-41. doi:10.1080/08990220.2019.1572602
6. 6. Chihuri S, Wong CK. Factors associated with the likelihood of fall-related injury among people with lower limb loss. Inj Epidemiol. 2018;5(42).
7. 7. Wong CK, Chihuri ST, Li G. Risk of Fall-Related Injury in People with Lower Limb Amputations: A Prospective Cohort Study. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48:80-85.
8. 8. Bell JC, Wolf EJ, Schnall BL, Tis JE, Potter BK. Transfemoral amputations: is there an effect of residual limb length and orientation on energy expenditure? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(10):3055-3061. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3630-x

9. 9. Hunter SW, Batchelor F, Hill KD, Hill, Anne M, Mackintosh S, Payne M. Risk factors for falls in people with a lower limb amputation: a systematic review. PM&R. 2017;9(2):170-180. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.07.531
10. 10. Yu JC, Lam K, Nettel-Aguirre A, Donald M, Dukelow S. Incidence and Risk Factors of Falling in the Postoperative Lower Limb Amputee While on the Surgical Ward. PM&R. 2010;2(10):926-934.
11. 11. Huxham FE, Goldie PA, Patla AE. Theoretical considerations in balance assessment. Aust J Physiother. 2001;47:89-100.
12. 12. Mancini M, Horak FB. The Relevance of Clinical Balance Assessment Tools to Differentiate Balance Deficits. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;46(2):239-248.
13. 13. Jayakaran P, Johnson GM, Sullivan SJ, Nitz JC. Instrumented measurement of balance and postural control in individuals with lower limb amputation: a critical review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2012;35(3):187-196.
14. 14. Motawea M, Kyrillos F, Hanafy A, et al. Impact of Big Toe Amputation on Foot Biomechanics. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 2015; 3(12): 1224-1228.
15. 15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7).
16. 16. Ma L-L, Wang Y-Y, Yang Z-H, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng X-T. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Mil Med Res. 2020;7(7).
17. 17. Joanna Briggs Institute. About JBI - Who are we? https://joannabriggs.org/about.html. Accessed May 30, 2020.
18. 18. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. ; 2017. https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/. Accessed May 30, 2020.
19. 19. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. ; 2017. https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/.
20. 20. Claret CR, Herget GW, Kouba L, et al. Neuromuscular adaptations and sensorimotor integration following a unilateral transfemoral amputation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16(1). doi:10.1186/s12984-019-0586-9
21. 21. de Araújo HN, Mendes FA dos S, Fortes CE, Borin G, Garcia PA, Macedo OG, Marães VRF da S, Durigan JLQ. Dynamic and static postural control in volleyball players with transfemoral amputation. Rev Bras Med do Esporte. 2019;25(1):58–62.
22. 22. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Lura DJ, Dubey R V., Carey SL, Quillen WS, Mengelkoch LJ. Short And Mid-Distance Walking and Posturography With A Novel Microprocessor Knee. Technol Innov. 2014;15(4):359–68.
23. 23. Kendell C, Lemaire ED, Kofman J, Dudek N. Gait adaptations of transfemoral prosthesis users across multiple walking tasks. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(1):89–95 doi:10.1177/0309364614568410
24. 24. Khiri F, Karimi MT, Fatoye F, Jamshidi N. An assessment of stability, gait performance and energy consumption in individuals with transfemoral amputation. J Mech Med Biol. 2015;15(4). doi:10.1142/S0219519415500499
25. 25. Kumar Vimal A, Kant Godiyal A, Singh U, Bhasin S, Joshi D. Transfemoral amputee’s limit of stability and sway analysis during weight shifting exercise with a vibrotactile feedback system. Somatosens Mot Res. 2019 Jan 2;36(1):31–41.
26. 26. McGrath M, Laszczak P, Zahedi S, Moser D. Microprocessor knees with ‘standing support’ and articulating, hydraulic ankles improve balance control and inter-limb loading during quiet standing. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng [Internet]. 2018; 5:205566831879539
27. 27. Wong CK, Rheinstein J, Stern MA. Benefits for adults with transfemoral amputations and peripheral artery disease using microprocessor compared with nonmicroprocessor prosthetic knees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2015;94(10):804–10.
28. 28. Hale CA. Physiotherapy for people with major amputation. In: Tidy’s Physiotherapy: Fifteenth Edition. ; 2013. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7020-4344-4.00020-1
29. 29. Karlsson A, Frykberg G. Correlations between force plate measures for assessment of balance. Clin Biomech. 2000. doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(99)00096-0
30. 30. Błaszczyk JW. Sway ratio - A new measure for quantifying postural stability. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2008.
31. 31. Kovač I, Medved V, Ostojić L. Ground reaction force analysis in traumatic transtibial amputees’ gait. Coll Antropol. 2009.
32. 32. Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee SL. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992. doi:10.5555/uri:pii:000399939290174U
33. 33. Major MJ, Fatone S, Roth EJ. Validity and reliability of the Berg Balance Scale for community-dwelling persons with lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.07.002
34. 34. Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: The “get-up and go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986.
35. 35. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, De Vries J, Göeken LNH, Eisma WH. The timed “up and go” test: Reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90234-4
36. 36. Datta D, Ariyaratnam R, Hilton S. Timed walking test - an all-embracing outcome measure for lower-limb amputees? Clin Rehabil. 1996. doi:10.1177/026921559601000307