Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review.
Alix Chadwell, Laura Diment, M Micó-Amigo and 8 others
PMID 32665020WHAT IT FOUND
Objective sensors can show real-world prosthesis use, but most studies found little difference between prosthetic components.
Activity levels often tracked clinical function, while self-report and clinic tests did not fully capture everyday patterns.
Key findings
01Community monitoring studies showed that prosthesis users were generally less active than anatomically intact controls, and people with vascular disease, above-knee amputation or lower K-levels were less active.
02Most studies comparing prosthetic components did not find clear differences in everyday activity.
03Everyday step counts often lined up with clinical function scores, and monitoring was seen as adding information beyond clinic-based assessment.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Many included studies had small samples. This makes it hard to detect real differences between prosthetic components or interventions. Most community studies counted steps rather than describing activity type, gait quality or the context of activity. Self-report and clinic-based tests did not always match everyday activity. The review therefore relied on very different primary studies. Wear and non-wear detection, especially for upper-limb prostheses, was not fully validated. Many sensors required regular clinic visits for data download, and battery or memory limits make long-term monitoring impractical. No included study reported user acceptability of the monitors. The review did not cover orthotics, despite relevance to some prosthetic and orthotic services. Low-resource settings face cost, access, training, cultural and privacy barriers that limit real-world use.
Declared interests
Funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering (UK). The supplied text does not report author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that sensors should be used routinely or that component differences are established. The review describes monitoring methods, not a validated clinical service, and many included studies were small.