Matthew Quigley

Erratum to: Describe the outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and how these compare to transtibial amputation: a systematic review protocol for the development of shared decision making resources

© 2015 Dillon et al. Open Access This article International License (http://creativecommons reproduction in any medium, provided you g the Creative Commons license, and indicate if (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ze • We accept pre-submission inquiries • Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal • We provide round the clock customer support • Convenient online submission • Thorough peer review • Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services • Maximum visibility for your research

Quality of life in persons with partial foot or transtibial amputation: A systematic review

Study design: Systematic review. Background: Common beliefs about quality of life in people with partial foot and transtibial amputation are often described as passing comments in the literature with seeming little research evidence. A clear understanding of the research evidence is important to inform decisions about amputation level from a quality of life perspective. Objective: To systematically gather and appraise research evidence comparing quality of life between persons with partial foot and transtibial amputation. Methods: A comprehensive suite of databases (e.g. Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Web of Science) were searched using terms relating to amputation level and quality of life. Reference lists of articles that met the inclusion criteria were hand searched. Included studies reported quantitative data for persons with partial foot and transtibial amputation secondary to peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. Studies were appraised using the McMaster University Critical Review form. Results: There is insufficient evidence comparing quality of life in people with partial foot and transtibial amputation. The available evidence suggests that quality of life may be very similar in people with partial foot and transtibial amputation and the small differences are not likely to be clinically meaningful. Conclusion: Without adequate evidence comparing quality of life in people with partial foot and transtibial amputation, it is difficult to inform decisions about amputation level from a quality of life perspective. Clinical relevance There is insufficient evidence about differences in QoL between persons with PFA or TTA. Contrary to common belief, the available evidence suggests that QoL may be similar in persons with PFA and TTA. Further research is needed to inform decisions about amputation level from a QoL perspective.

Describe the outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and how these compare to transtibial amputation: a systematic review protocol for the development of shared decision-making resources

BackgroundHelping people make well-informed decisions about dysvascular partial foot amputation is becoming increasingly important as improvements in diabetes care and vascular surgery make more distal amputations increasingly possible. The high rates of complications and reamputations associated with partial foot amputation are of concern, particularly given that transtibial amputation seems to result in similar outcomes (e.g., mobility and quality of life) with comparatively few complications and reamputations. The aim of this review is to describe the outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and compare these to transtibial amputation. Results from the review are intended for use in the development of shared decision-making resources.Methods/designA comprehensive range of databases—MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and Web of Science—will be searched using National Library of Medicine, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms as well as title, abstract, and keywords relating to different amputation levels and outcomes of interest; specifically: incidence, prevalence, and rate of amputation; rate of mortality, wound failure, dehiscence, and time between index and ipsilateral reamputations; and mobility, functional ability, activity and participation, quality of life, pain, and psychosocial outcomes including depression and anxiety. Articles that meet the inclusion criteria will be hand-searched for relevant citations. A forward citation search using Google Scholar will be used to identify articles not yet indexed. Original research published in the English language after 1 January 2000 will be included. The McMaster Critical Review Forms will be used to assess methodological quality and identify sources of bias. Included articles will be independently appraised by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a spreadsheet based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group’s data extraction template by a primary reviewer and checked for accuracy and clarity by a second reviewer. Findings from the review will be reported as a narrative without meta-analysis given the anticipated heterogeneity of the literature.DiscussionResults from the review can be used in the design of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult decisions about partial foot amputation.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015029186

Outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and how these compare to transtibial amputation: A systematic review for the development of shared decision-making resources

BackgroundDysvascular partial foot amputation (PFA) is a common sequel to advanced peripheral vascular disease. Helping inform difficult discussions between patients and practitioners about the level of PFA, or the decision to have a transtibial amputation (TTA) as an alternative, requires an understanding of the current research evidence on a wide range of topics including wound healing, reamputation, quality of life, mobility, functional ability, participation, pain and psychosocial outcomes, and mortality. The aim of this review was to describe a comprehensive range of outcomes of dysvascular PFA and compare these between levels of PFA and TTA.MethodsThe review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015029186). A systematic search of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, psychINFO, AMED, CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and Web of Science. These databases were searched using MeSH terms and keywords relating to different amputation levels and outcomes of interest. Peer reviewed studies of original research—irrespective of the study design—were included if published in English between 1 January 2000, and 31 December 2015, and included discrete cohort(s) with dysvascular PFA or PFA and TTA. Outcomes of interest were rate of wound healing and complications, rate of ipsilateral reamputation, quality of life, functional ability, mobility, pain (i.e., residual limb or phantom pain), psychosocial outcomes (i.e., depression, anxiety, body image and self-esteem), participation, and mortality rate. Included studies were independently appraised by two reviewers. The McMaster Critical Review Forms were used to assess methodological quality and identify sources of bias. Data were extracted based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group’s data extraction template by a primary reviewer and checked for accuracy and clarity by a second reviewer. Findings are reported as narrative summaries given the heterogeneity of the literature, except for mortality and ipsilateral reamputation where data allowed for proportional meta-analyses.ResultsTwenty-nine unique articles were included in the review, acknowledging that some studies reported multiple outcomes. Eighteen studies reported all-cause proportionate mortality. A smaller number of studies reported outcomes related to functional ability (two), mobility (four), quality of life (three), ipsilateral reamputation (six) as well as wound healing and complications (four). No studies related to pain, participation or psychosocial outcomes met the inclusion criteria. Subjects were typically older and male and had diabetes among other comorbidities. More detailed information about the cohorts such as race or sociodemographic factors were reported in an ad hoc manner. Common sources of bias included contamination, co-intervention, or lack of operational definition for some outcomes (e.g., wound healing) as illustrative examples.ConclusionsAside from mortality, there was limited evidence regarding outcomes of dysvascular PFA, particularly how outcomes differ between levels of PFA and TTA. Acknowledging that there is considerable uncertainty given the small body of literature on many topics where the risk of bias is high, the available evidence suggests that a large proportion of people with PFA experience delayed wound healing and ipsilateral reamputation. People with TTA have increased risk of mortality compared to those with PFA, which may reflect that those considered suitable candidates for TTA have more advanced systemic disease that also increases the risk of dying. Mobility and quality of life may be similar in people with PFA and TTA.Systematic review registrationCRD42015029186

While Mortality Rates Differ After Dysvascular Partial Foot and Transtibial Amputation, Should They Influence the Choice of Amputation Level?

Although there is strong evidence to show that the risk of dying after transtibial amputation is higher than partial foot amputation, we are concerned by the implication that amputation level influences mortality, and that such interpretations of the evidence may be used to inform decisions about the choice of amputation level. We argue that the choice of partial foot or transtibial amputation does not influence the risk of mortality. The highest mortality rates are observed in studies with older people with more advanced systemic disease and multiple comorbidities. Studies that control for the confounding influence of these factors have shown no differences in mortality rates by amputation level. These insights have important implications in terms of how we help inform difficult decisions about amputation at either the partial foot or transtibial level, given a more thoughtful interpretation of the published mortality rates.

Development of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult healthcare decisions: An example focused on dysvascular partial foot and transtibial amputations

Background: Shared decision making is a consultative process designed to encourage patient participation in decision making by providing accurate information about the treatment options and supporting deliberation with the clinicians about treatment options. The process can be supported by resources such as decision aids and discussion guides designed to inform and facilitate often difficult conversations. As this process increases in use, there is opportunity to raise awareness of shared decision making and the international standards used to guide the development of quality resources for use in areas of prosthetic/orthotic care. Objectives: To describe the process used to develop shared decision-making resources, using an illustrative example focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Development process: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were used to guide the development of the decision aid and discussion guide focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Examples from these shared decision-making resources help illuminate the stages of development including scoping and design, research synthesis, iterative development of a prototype, and preliminary testing with patients and clinicians not involved in the development process. Conclusion: Lessons learnt through the process, such as using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards checklist and development guidelines, may help inform others wanting to develop similar shared decision-making resources given the applicability of shared decision making to many areas of prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice. Clinical relevance Shared decision making is a process designed to guide conversations that help patients make an informed decision about their healthcare. Raising awareness of shared decision making and the international standards for development of high-quality decision aids and discussion guides is important as the approach is introduced in prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice.

Prediction of ischial ramal angle for transfemoral ischial containment sockets

Background: A well-fitting and comfortable ischial containment socket relies on accurately replicating the transverse plane angle of the ischium and ischial ramus angle, inside the medial socket brim. Prediction of the ischial ramus angle, may provide a way to determine the ischial ramus angle without in vivo measurement. Objectives: To determine the accuracy with which the ischial ramus angle could be predicted and identify which variables contributed significantly to the prediction. Study design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Computed tomography scans were randomly sampled from a cadaveric database (n = 200). Standard multiple regression models were developed to predict the ischial ramus angle based on pelvic measures. Results: The regression model explained 10.5% of the variance in ischial ramus angle (p = 0.018). The standard error of the estimate was 11.32°. While regression models by sex explained a larger proportion of the variance, the resulting accuracy was not improved. Conclusion: The regression models explained a small proportion of variance in ischial ramus angle. The average error associated with the prediction was too large to accurately predict the ischial ramus angle for use in clinical practice. Contrary to commonly held beliefs, there was no statistically significant difference in ischial ramus angle between sexes. Clinical relevance Prediction of ischial ramus angle does not have sufficient accuracy to be clinically useful, but descriptive data may help clinicians identify casting errors and correct these in a plaster positive, knowing that the average ischial ramus angle was 32.65°±5.59° (relative to mid-sagittal plane) and does not vary between sexes.

Stakeholder perspectives for possible residual limb monitoring system for persons with lower-limb amputation

Abstract Purpose: To gather ideas from lower-limb prosthesis users and certified prosthetists regarding possible residual limb monitoring system features and data presentation. We also gathered information on the type of residual limb problems typically encountered, how they currently manage those problems, and their ideas for methods to better manage them. Materials and methods: Two focus groups were held; one with certified prosthetists and another with lower-limb prosthesis users. Open-ended questions were used in a moderated discussion that was audio recorded, transcribed, and assessed using applied thematic analysis. Results and conclusions: Seven individuals participated in each focus group. Prosthetists came from a mix of practice settings, while prosthesis users were diverse in level of amputation, aetiology, and years of experience using lower-limb prostheses. Residual limb problems reported by participants were consistent with those in the literature. Participants suggested better managing residual limb problems through improved education, better detection of residual limb problems, and using sensor-based information to improve prosthetic technology. Participants favoured short-term use of a possible residual limb monitoring systems to troubleshoot residual limb problems, with temperature and pressure the most frequently mentioned measurements. Participants described that an ideal residual limb monitoring system would be lightweight, not interfere with prosthesis function, and result in benefits with regard to prosthetic care and socket function that outweighed inconveniences or concerns regarding system use. A potential positive of system use included having objective data for reimbursement justification, although it was pointed out that the residual limb monitoring system itself also needed to be reimbursable. Implications for Rehabilitation Stakeholders suggested better managing residual limb problems through improved education, better detection of residual limb problems, and using sensor-based information to improve prosthetic technology. Stakeholders favored short-term use of a possible system to troubleshoot residual limb problems, with temperature and pressure the most frequently mentioned measurements. Stakeholders described that an ideal residual limb monitoring system would be lightweight, not interfere with prosthesis function, and result in benefits with regard to prosthetic care and socket function that outweighs any inconveniences or concerns regarding system use. Stakeholders indicated that a potential positive of system use included having objective data for reimbursement justification, although it was pointed out that the residual limb monitoring system itself also needed to be reimbursable.

A systematic review describing incidence rate and prevalence of dysvascular partial foot amputation; how both have changed over time and compare to transtibial amputation

BackgroundPartial foot amputation (PFA) is a common consequence of advanced peripheral vascular disease. Given the different ways incidence rate and prevalence data have been measured and reported, it is difficult to synthesize data and reconcile variation between studies. As such, there is uncertainty in whether the incidence rates and prevalence of PFA have increased over time compared to the decline in transtibial amputation (TTA). The aims of this systematic review were to describe the incidence rate and prevalence of dysvascular PFA over time, and how these compare to TTA.MethodDatabases (i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE, psychINFO, AMED, CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health) were searched using MeSH terms and keywords related to amputation level and incidence rate or prevalence. Original research published in English from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2015 were independently appraised, and data extracted, by two reviewers. The McMaster Critical Review Forms were used to assess methodological quality and bias. Results were reported as narrative summaries given heterogeneity of the literature and included the weighted mean annual incidence rate and 95% confidence interval.ResultsTwenty two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty one reported incidence rate data for some level of PFA; four also included a TTA cohort. One study reported prevalence data for a cohort with toe(s) amputation. Samples were typically older, male and included people with diabetes among other comorbidities. Incidence rates were reported using a myriad of denominators and strata such as diabetes type or initial/recurrent amputation.ConclusionWhen appropriately grouped by denominator and strata, incidence rates were more homogenous than might be expected. Variation between studies did not necessarily reduce confidence in the conclusion; for example, incidence rate of PFA were many times larger in cohorts with diabetes (94.24 per 100,000 people with diabetes; 95% CI 55.50 to 133.00) compared to those without (3.80 per 100,000 people without diabetes; 95% CI 1.43 to 6.16). It is unclear whether the incidence rates of PFA have changed over time or how they have changed relative to TTA. Further research requires datasets that include a large number of amputations each year and lengthy time periods to determine whether small annual changes in incidence rates have a cumulative and statistically significant effect over time.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015029186.