Sex‐specific Differences in Multisite Pain Presentation among Adults with Lower‐Limb Loss

Pain Practice ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Haldane Beisheim ◽  
Mayank Seth ◽  
John Robert Horne ◽  
Gregory Evan Hicks ◽  
Ryan Todd Pohlig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Limb ◽  
Limb Loss ◽  
Multisite Pain

Limitations of body mass index for counseling individuals with unilateral lower extremity amputation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra P Frost ◽  
Tracy Norman Giest ◽  
Allison A Ruta ◽  
Teresa K Snow ◽  
Mindy Millard-Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Body Fat ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Limb Loss ◽  
Percent Body Fat ◽  
X Ray

Background: Body composition is important for health screening, but appropriate methods for unilateral lower extremity amputees have not been validated. Objectives: To compare body mass index adjusted using Amputee Coalition equations (body mass index–Amputee Coalition) to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in unilateral lower limb amputees. Study design: Cross-sectional, experimental. Methods: Thirty-eight men and women with lower limb amputations (transfemoral, transtibial, hip disarticulation, Symes) participated. Body mass index (mass/height2) was compared to body mass index corrected for limb loss (body mass index–Amputee Coalition). Accuracy of classification and extrapolation of percent body fat with body mass index was compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results: Body mass index–Amputee Coalition increased body mass index (by ~ 1.1 kg/m2) but underestimated and mis-classified 60% of obese and overestimated 100% of lean individuals according to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Estimated mean percent body fat (95% confidence interval) from body mass index–Amputee Coalition (28.3% (24.9%, 31.7%)) was similar to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry percent body fat (29.5% (25.2%, 33.7%)) but both were significantly higher ( p < 0.05) than percent body fat estimated from uncorrected body mass index (23.6% (20.4%, 26.8%)). However, total errors for body mass index and body mass index–Amputee Coalition converted to percent body fat were unacceptably large (standard error of the estimate = 6.8%, 6.2% body fat) and the discrepancy between both methods and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was inversely related ( r = −0.59 and r = −0.66, p < 0.05) to the individual’s level of body fatness. Conclusions: Body mass index (despite correction) underestimates health risk for obese patients and overestimates lean, muscular individuals with lower limb amputation. Clinical relevance Clinical recommendations for an ideal body mass based on body mass index–Amputee Coalition should not be relied upon in lower extremity amputees. This is of particular concern for obese lower extremity amputees whose health risk might be significantly underestimated based on body mass index despite a “correction” formula for limb loss.

Toward improving residual limb climate within prostheses for persons with lower limb loss

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley D Knight ◽  
Brad D Hendershot ◽  
Todd J Sleeman ◽  
Christopher L Dearth ◽  
Felix Starker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Limb ◽  
Limb Loss ◽  
Residual Limb

scholarly journals Single-leg forward hopping exposures adversely affect knee joint health among persons with unilateral lower limb loss: A predictive model

2020 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 109941
Author(s):  
Joseph G. Wasser ◽  
Julian C. Acasio ◽  
Brad D. Hendershot ◽  
Ross H. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Knee Joint ◽  
Predictive Model ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Limb Loss ◽  
Joint Health

Spinal Anesthesia On Geriatrics Patient Having Bilateral Lower Limb Loss: 2 Case Report

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 242-244
Author(s):  
Mesut Erbas ◽  
Omur Ozturk ◽  
Hasan Ali Kiraz ◽  
Huseyin Toman ◽  
Hasan Sahin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Limb Loss ◽  
Bilateral Lower Limb
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document