Exploring the Associations between the Biomechanical and Psychological Mechanistic Pathways of Lower Back Pain Development amongst Persons with Lower-Limb Amputation

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4143760/v1

Download PDF

Study protocol

Exploring the Associations between the Biomechanical and Psychological Mechanistic Pathways of Lower Back Pain Development amongst Persons with Lower-Limb Amputation

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4143760/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Introduction

The global rise in lower-limb amputations is mainly due to diabetes and vascular complications. Amputations cause serious physical and psycho-social disabilities which impair locomotion and compromise patients quality of life. Biopsychosocial factors such as altered gait parameters, poor prosthetic fit, depression, fear avoidance behaviours and stigma increase the risk of individuals incurring lower back pain; the leading cause of secondary disability amongst persons with lower-limb amputation. Exploring the potential mechanistic pathways of lower back pain development is important to inform timely patient-centred programmes of care. Currently, limited information exists to inform the design of such programmes. Thus, there is a pressing need to understand the bio-behavioural, psychological, and social features of individuals with lower-limb amputation in the presence of lower back pain.

Methods and analysis

This proposed protocol employs a prospective longitudinal study design that aims to explore the determinants of lower back pain amongst 30 adults with unilateral lower-limb amputation over 12-months. Biomechanical gait variables, trunk and lower-limb muscle activations, and objective pain measurements will be monitored every 3-months, and their relationship will be investigated. This information can be used to explore the characteristics of lower back pain and will inform future care management and rehabilitation processes. A data repository will be created and will be accessible through the University of Bath library website (https://library.bath.ac.uk/home).

Ethics and dissemination

This research has ethical approval from HRA ethics (REC reference: 23/EE/0090) agreed 28/04/23. The study results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed clinical biomechanics journal, and disseminated through conference presentations.

Trial reference number

The study is registered at IRAS ID: 321729 and at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06243549.

Lower-limb amputations

back pain

phantom pain

residual limb

gait

muscle activation

Strengths and limitations of this study

This study is interdisciplinary and will provide a wide range of longitudinal data across both bio-behavioural and psycho-social outcomes, as suggested by recent systematic reviews highlighting the multidimensional nature of lower back pain.
The study samples includes a diverse population of adults with lower-limb amputation (different levels of amputation and causes), compared with the previous literature which focuses primarily on persons with traumatic cause of amputation.
Due to the time frame of the study, we are only recruiting 30 participants based on a power analysis made on biomechanics parameters. Since this is one of the first studies in this area considering psychological and biomechanical factors, a larger sample size may have been considered if this was feasible.

Lower-limb amputations cause serious physical and psycho-social disabilities that can compromise an individual’s quality of life and necessitate diverse prosthetic solutions (e.g. artificial limbs) to increase mobility (Sauter et al., 2013). However, locomotion post-amputation is altered. Gait parameters reported to change in persons with unilateral lower-limb amputation (LLA) include altered joint load distribution caused by gait asymmetry and dangerous compensations, poor prosthetic fit or alignment, and increased sound limb contact time (Yang et al., 2012). These biomechanical factors increase the risk of long-term complications, including lower back pain (LBP), sound limb knee osteoarthritis (KOA) (Hungerford & Cockin, 1975; Lemaire & Fisher, 1994), and osteoporosis in the bones of the amputated leg. Persons with LLA spend less time on their amputated limb (Breakey, 1976), leading to osteopenia and subsequent osteoporosis due to insufficient loading of the bones, and overloading-induced KOA in the joints of sound limb. Although these long-terms complications can be related (e.g. pain in the joints can affect gait), in this protocol we will focus specifically on LBP.

Epidemiology of limb amputations

The number of people with limb loss is growing steadily. Globally, the incidence and prevalence number of people living with traumatic amputation increased from 11.37 million and 370.25 million (16.4% rise) in 1990, to 13.23 million and 552.45 million (49.2% rise) in 2019 (Yuan et al., 2023). The global annual incidence of individuals living with diabetes-related LLA is approximately 94.82 cases per 100,000 individuals with diabetes between 2010–2020 (Ezzatvar & García-Hermoso, 2023). Public Health England (2019) statistics show a 14% rise in amputations between 2015–2018 compared to 2012–2015. This is due to increased life expectancy and a corresponding higher incidence of diabetes and vascular diseases (Dillon et al., 2018; WHO, 2015). The UK has approximately 55,000–60,000 individuals with limb loss (Meffen et al., 2021), 86% of which are LLA (Dillingham et al., 2002). Transtibial (below knee-level) amputations (TTA) account for approximately 31% of LLA and transfemoral (above knee-level) amputations (TFA) account for 24% (Imam et al., 2017). Approximately 65–90% of LLAs are attributed to vascular problems, and ~ 5% are caused by trauma, malignancy, and congenital limb deficiencies (Imam et al., 2017).

Prevalence of lower back pain amongst persons with lower-limb amputation

LBP is a serious global health problem and is considered the leading cause of disability worldwide, with 11–38% of the general population experiencing LBP over a one-year duration (Buchbinder et al., 2013; Hoy et al., 2010; Johannes et al., 2010). The annual cost of LBP in the United States is approximately $100 billion, with two-thirds attributed to socio-economic factors including reduced productivity (Katz, 2006). LBP is an important cause of secondary disability amongst persons with LLA (Morgenroth et al., 2010), with national annual prevalence rates in four countries (United Kingdom, United States, Sweden, and Vietnam) between 50–90% (Ehde et al., 2001; Ephraim et al., 2005; Foote et al., 2015; Hammarlund et al., 2011; Kulkarni et al., 2005; Smith et al., 1999). Following amputation, a one-month prevalence rate of 20–30% (Manchikanti et al., 2014; Sadowski et al., 2022) and a two-year prevalence of 60% (Kulkarni et al., 2005) have been reported. Approximately 25–50% of individuals with LBP report the condition as ‘bothersome’ and experience difficulties performing activities of daily living (ADL), including ambulating and standing up from a chair (Ehde et al., 2001).

Lower Back Pain Characteristics and Gait amongst Persons with Lower-Limb Amputation

The experience of pain is a complex biopsychosocial problem, however the interplay between biological, psychological, and social stressors, which may play a role in pain development, is poorly characterised amongst both individuals with and without LLA (Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2022). Persons with LLA often experience different types of pain, including residual limb pain (RLP), phantom limb pain (PLP), joint pain, and LBP, which can limit individuals from achieving ADLs and pursuing meaningful goals. RLP occurs in the remaining part of the amputated limb often attributed to physical peripheral factors (e.g. local wound healing, neuromas, or poor socket fitting). PLP is defined as a sensation relating to a limb or organ which has been amputated (Davis, 1993; Smith et al., 1999), involving peripheral and central nervous system adaptations. LBP is defined as pain around the lumbar spine, it can be multidimensional, and is described by pain location, intensity, frequency, and its impact on ADLs (Smith et al., 1999). The experience of frequent (daily or weekly) LBP amongst persons with LLA is associated with moderate/severe physical disability and difficulties performing ADLs (Ehde et al., 2001; Hammarlund et al., 2011; Kulkarni et al., 2005). Common examinations for LBP diagnosis and monitoring are radiology, validated questionnaires, and functional outcome measures (Koes et al., 2006).

Although numerous studies have assessed persons with LLA walking ability (Golbranson, 1980; Golbranson, 1981; Sanders et al., 1993; Skinner & Effeney, 1985), few have investigated the experience of pain as a variable that may affect walking performance and discrepancies exist regarding the influence of pain on gait outcomes. Currently, there are no longitudinal studies investigating when LBP starts and the consequences, and key variables which may be associated with LBP, including psycho-social factors and muscle activations, are rarely reported. Furthermore, the contributory role of gait analysis factors, such as increased ground reaction forces (GRF), joint loads, and greater time spent on the sound limb (Khodadadeh et al., 1988; Lemaire & Fisher, 1994), have been heavily debated (Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019). This is due to studies inaccurately reporting pain location and few specified pain frequency, severity, or intensity (Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019). Additionally, others used pain questionnaires which have not been validated in the literature (Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019).

Previous research has found an association between prosthetic use and the prevalence of LBP amongst persons with traumatic LLA (Gailey et al., 2008; Tranberg et al., 2010). As persons with traumatic LLA are generally younger and more active compared to individuals with vascular LLA (Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019), greater prosthetic use amongst this population may predispose individuals to LBP. Research has proposed that the severity of LBP is greater with more proximal amputation locations (Ebrahimzadeh et al., 2013; Friel et al., 2005; Smith et al., 1999; Taghipour et al., 2009). However, discrepancies exist within the literature regarding the accuracy of these findings (Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019). When studying LBP prevalence amongst persons with LLA, it is important to account for one’s activity levels, time spent active on the prosthesis, the number of years of prosthetic use, and psycho-social factors, such as anxiety and depression (Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019).

The association between amputation and pain is unclear due to the multifactorial nature of each condition. In addition, variables such as age, pre-existing pain, and clinical characteristics of people with limb loss are rarely taken into account, and with that, small sample sizes typically engaged in this research domain makes inferences greatly limited for specific patient groups. There is evidence that LBP is more bothersome than PLP and RLP (Smith et al., 1999), and is associated with shorter walking distances one-year post amputation (Helm et al., 1986; Pohjolainen & Alaranta, 1991). Risk factors for LBP include type and level of amputation and prosthesis, poor prosthetic fit, gait modifications, limb-length discrepancies, and psycho-social factors such as fear avoidance and depression (Shin et al., 2018).

Psycho-Social Risk Factors for Lower Back Pain amongst Persons with Lower-Limb Amputation

Although psycho-social factors do not appear to be predictive of the initial onset of LBP (Koes et al., 2006), factors such as anxiety, depression, and fear avoidance have been associated with an increased risk of chronic LBP development in both individuals with and without LLA (Hoogendoorn et al., 2000; Pincus et al., 2002). A national survey amongst persons with LLA found that depression was significantly associated with ‘bothersome’ LBP (Ephraim et al., 2005). Depression is more common amongst persons with LLA compared to the general population (Cansever, 2003; Singh et al., 2009), therefore depressive moods may present a greater risk for LBP (Farrokhi et al., 2017).

Persons with LLA who display fear of using the prosthetic limb may develop dysfunctional movement patterns and subsequent LBP (Farrokhi et al., 2017; Picavet et al., 2002; Swinkels-Meewisse et al., 2006). Chou and Shekelle (2010) reported that higher fear-avoidance scores were associated with worse functional outcomes and a greater risk of LBP development at 3-, 6-, and 12-months. However, due to the small body of literature, the potential contributory role of psycho-social risk factors to LBP development requires further attention (Devan et al., 2014). Acute pre-amputation pain may increase the likelihood of individuals displaying post-operative fear of movement behaviour, which in turn may lead to pain chronification, disability, and reduced patient function (Markfelder & Pauli, 2020). Pre-amputation pain has been associated with a greater risk of post-operative pain 3- and 6-months post-amputation, and a greater duration (> 1 month) and intensity of pre-amputation pain is a risk factor for chronic pain (Jensen et al., 1983, Jensen et al., 1985, Nikolajsen et al., 1997).

Objectives and hypotheses

To address this gap, the proposed protocol will explore the bio-behavioural, psychological, and social characteristics of LBP amongst persons with unilateral LLA over a period of 12-months after their amputation. To date, this has not been explored in the current literature, and is therefore a novelty and strength of the proposed protocol. Specifically, interactions between bio-behavioural factors of movement (i.e. gait characteristics, trunk and lower-limb muscle activations), and the psycho-social aspects of pain and function will be investigated. Here, the term ‘function’ refers to the comprehensive overview of each participant’s everyday interactions and long-term targets, defined by the participant in terms of person-specific activities and goals. Consideration of these variables aim to improve an understanding grounded in patient-specific function, helping to decipher the relationships between the biopsychosocial characteristics of LBP in individuals with LLA. In doing so, this investigation looks to inform tailored care management and rehabilitation processes.

We hypothesise that individuals who display fear avoidance behaviours will have altered joint range of motion, which in turn will influence muscle activation patterns, leading to greater loading on one side and asymmetries between the sound and residual limb, and therefore increase the risk of LBP development.

Hypothesis 1

(HA1): Gait characteristics will change with time post-amputation and will stabilise following a reduction in movement pattern and trunk muscle activation asymmetries.

Hypothesis 2

(HA2): Individuals with a greater risk factor pattern of stressors will experience more pain following the amputation.

Hypothesis 3

(HA3): Persons with LLA who experience different types of pain will be at a greater risk of reduced functionality over time.

Hypothesis 4

(HA4): Greater scores on psycho-social assessment of pain questionnaires, asymmetric gait patterns, greater and asynchronous activation of trunk muscles, and changes in spatiotemporal characteristics of gait, such as slower gait speed, will be associated with altered pain and function.

Study design

This research is a prospective longitudinal study that aims to explore the potential mechanistic pathways of LBP development amongst persons with unilateral LLA. The dataset will include data collection every 3-months over a 12-month period (Fig. 1). All testing procedures will take place at the local rehabilitation centre where patients are currently registered for their post-amputation rehabilitation (either the Bristol Centre for Enablement, North Bristol NHS Trust or the Portsmouth Enablement Centre, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust). Measurement sessions will occur following patients’ routine visits to the centres, ensuring that the testing sessions are structured around the patient’s availability to improve study recruitment and retention. Biomechanical gait variables and muscle activations of trunk and sound lower-limb muscles will be monitored, and objective measurements of different sources of pain and physical activity will be determined using online questionnaires.

Study population

The recruitment of 30 NHS patients, over 18 years old, with unilateral TFA and TTA will be attempted from the Bristol Centre for Enablement and the Portsmouth Enablement Centre. These centres host a large heterogeneity of patients, allowing us to recruit individuals with different levels of amputation (above/below the knee) and cause of amputation (traumatic/vascular/cancer causes). Furthermore, the rehabilitation programme provided to patients across these centres are very similar regarding aims and outcomes, and the present study will run in parallel with the patients’ personal goals.

Recruitment

Recruitment started in September 2023 and will be finished by Autumn 2024. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 1. Clinicians at the centres will identify participants who meet the inclusion criteria for study participation during an assessment day (supplementary Fig. 1). These clinicians will be existing members of the patients clinical care team and will make the initial approach to patients for study inclusion. Patients will meet the investigator team at the NHS centre where they are currently booked for their rehabilitation in the post-operative period. Participants will be given an information sheet and will sign a consent form as approved by HRA ethics (REC reference: 23/EE/0090, 28/04/23).

Table 1

Inclusion/exclusion criteria which must be met by participants before study involvement.
Inclusion	Exclusion
> 18 years old	Balance disorders
Unilaterally amputated above or below the knee	Patients who lack the capacity to consent for prosthetic use
Able to walk on level ground	Patients at serious risk of sound foot which limits normal rehabilitation
Newly fitted with a prosthetic (0-3-months post-amputation)	Transfer-in patients
Cause of amputation due to vascular, trauma or cancer	Persons with congenital lower-limb amputation

Study outcomes

Participants will start the protocol as soon as they are fitted with the prosthesis and they are able to walk (approximately 0-3-months post-amputation). The independent variable of this study is the time course (12-months) with measurements taken every 3-months for 12-months (5 visits in total). The biomechanical and psycho-social variables reported in Table 2 represent the dependent variables. Preliminary pilot tests have been performed in the clinical setting on able-bodied participants.

Table 2

Full list of biomechanical and psycho-social variables for analysis
Variables	Outcome measures
Bio-behavioural	Lower-limb and lumbar kinetics (e.g. joint reaction forces)
	Lower-limb kinematics, including lumbopelvic and lower-limb region movement asymmetries (e.g. joint angles)
	Trunk and lower-limb muscle activations and timings
	Body centre of mass position and symmetry indices
	Temporal-spatial characteristics of gait (e.g. stride length, walking speed)
	Lower-limb-length discrepancies
	Pain intensity/location/type
Psycho-social	Pain attention and interference
	Fear of movement
Psycho-social	Physical activity and quality of life scores
	Anxiety and depression
Other	Anthropometric measurements, socket comfort, prosthesis type, presence of blisters

Study procedures

Basic anthropometric data (mass, height) will be recorded for each participant before starting the motion capture sessions. Participants will wear their own passive prosthesis, and will perform a static, standing calibration trial in the anatomical position followed by twelve 10-metre gait trials at a comfortable self-selected velocity and six sit-to-stand movements from a chair. A good walking trial will require participants to walk at constant velocity with the foot within the boundary of the force plate. During the sit-to-stand tests, participants must have their feet placed shoulder width apart on the force plate and rise from the chair without the use of the hands/arms.

Walking trials

Biomechanical gait analysis will be measured using eight Miqus M5 Qualisys cameras (Qualisys, Sweden), two video cameras, and one portable Kistler force plate (Kistler, Switzerland) to examine movement patterns and loads acting on the joints during level walking. Non-invasive reflective markers (n = 54; Fig. 2) will be placed on the participants before starting data collection in the anatomical locations listed in supplementary Table 1, and in line with the methods by Silverman and colleagues (2008). Reliability for marker placement in a similar demographic population in terms of BMI (age-matched BMI above the 97th percentile) has been assessed by Horsak and colleagues (2017). The standard error of measurement (SEM) was below 5° for all participants (n = 11) for 28 kinematic parameters measured, including anterior pelvic tilt, pelvis rotation, and hip and knee flexion. Furthermore, 23 parameters displayed acceptable ICCs (≥ 0.70), and the remainder showed moderate values.

Eight Delsys Trigno EMG electrodes (Delsys, MA, USA) will be positioned bilaterally on four different pairs of muscles (as displayed in Fig. 2), to measure their activity. The skin will be adequately prepared by shaving and cleaning with alcohol wipes and the correct location of marker placement will be determined from the SENIAM guidelines (Hermens et al., 2000). Due to participant characteristics (poor balance and limited mobility) and time constraints (only one hour is allowed for data collection with the patients), the peak activation of each muscle during the sit-to-stand trials will be used for the EMG normalisation analysis, as other authors did in similar investigations on participants with LLA (Mehryar et al., 2016; Pantall & Ewins, 2013). Variability of EMG placement of lower-limb muscles has been assessed amongst persons with LLA by Wentink and colleagues (2013). The overall inter-subject variability was larger in persons with LLA compared to controls, with a 3% SEM of the EMG data for the stance and swing phases for controls, and 4% for persons with LLA (outliers ranging from 12–14%).

Sit-to-stand trials

The portable Kistler force plate and the EMG system will be used to determine GRF and muscle mechanics non-invasively to identify potential risks for LBP. Six repetitions will be performed after the walking trials, with the participants still wearing the markers and EMG sensors as described before. Then following variables will be calculated; GRF, centre of pressure (coordinates), trunk kinematics (trunk angles and angular velocity), EMG muscles activity, and timing of the sit-to-stand movement (using the position of the T12 marker and hip/knee peak extension).

Questionnaires

Participants will complete eight questionnaires, assessing pain and psychological variables (supplementary Table 2), using the online software Qualtrics. Patients will complete the questionnaires online within 24-hours of each testing session and the principal investigator will provide support via a phone call.

These measures have been validated for use amongst the chronic non-malignant pain population and are widely used in clinical settings for the treatment of chronic pain (Tan et al., 2004). The Brief Pain Inventory (α > .70), Pain Catastrophising Scale (α = .87), and the TSK (α = .95) are valid and reliable for use with LBP patients (Abedi et al., 2021; Keller et al., 2004; Sullivan et al., 1995), however reliability has not been assessed amongst persons with LLA.

Sample size

The sample size of 30 participants was calculated using G*Power software (3.1.9.7). An a priori power analysis was performed based on data from a previous study examining lumbar spine kinematics and LBP amongst persons with unilateral LLA (Morgenroth et al., 2010). The estimated sample size was calculated to be N = 26 participants (α = 0.05, 1-b = 0.80), with an effect size of 1.03. However, due to possible challenges with recruiting and retaining participants from clinical practice environments, such as people with limb loss, it is important to account for a 10% drop-out rate (Wang & Ji, 2020). Therefore, the recruitment of at least 30 participants in total will be attempted from the NHS Enablement Centres.

It is important to note that the sample size calculation takes into account only the kinematic variables, and not the relationship with the psycho-social variables measured through the online questionnaires. Ideally, a much larger population would be required for powered analysis of the psycho-social variables, however, due to the time constraints and the lack of data, the estimated sample size of N = 30 patients is the most feasible for the project duration.

Data analysis

Marker trajectories and GRF data during the walking and sit-to-stand trials will be processed using a 4th -order Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 6 Hz. Joint kinematic and kinetic data will be time-normalised to 101 sample points per gait cycle. Joint range of motion will be calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum angles during a gait cycle. Initial heel-strike and toe-off will be detected from the force trace as a single force platform will be used for all trials. Initial heel-strike will be detected as the first instance of force production, and toe-off will be defined as the final data point of force production. End heel-strike of a single gait cycle will be defined by the time-point of peak hip extension of the contralateral limb (De Asha et al., 2012). Raw EMG signals will be band-pass filtered between 30 and 400 Hz, full-wave rectified, and low-pass filtered (6 Hz) to create a linear envelope (Actis et al., 2018; Mehryar et al., 2016). The peak EMG signals of the trunk and sound lower-limb muscles during sit-to-stand trials will be used to normalise EMG data from the walking and sit-to-stand trials for each individual.

A 3D full-body TTA and TFA musculoskeletal model (38 degrees of freedom), modified from the validated model described by Rajagopal and colleagues (2016), will be used for muscle-driven simulations of gait (Fig. 3). The musculoskeletal models were developed in OpenSim 4.3 and includes a total of 324 musculotendon actuators. To model the trunk and pelvis, markers will be placed over the T12 and C7 spinous processes, the first sacral vertebrae, and bilaterally over the anterior superior iliac spine and posterior superior iliac spine. Additionally, a marker cluster will be placed on the lumbar spine region between the T12 and S1 markers. The models will be scaled in size and body mass to each participant using a static, standing calibration trial. The prosthetic limb will be scaled by positioning a marker at the bottom of the socket where it meets the pylon, allowing the pylon and the residual limb to be scaled with different scaling factors (Willson et al., 2023). Data will be processed in OpenSim for the calculation of joint kinematics (inverse kinematics) and kinetics (inverse dynamics and joint reaction analysis), using information from the muscles activation (EMG-informed analyses; Pizzolato et al., 2015). A full list of the variables measured for analysis was presented previously in Table 2.

Statistical analysis

All biomechanical data will be processed in MATLAB® R2023a (MathWorks, Inc) and OpenSim and reported as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analysis will be conducted using IBM SPSS software (Version 26.0. Armonk, NY). Descriptive data obtained from anthropometrics, online questionnaires, and gait parameters will be analysed by descriptive statistical methods. Biomechanical and psycho-social data will be inputted into a random forest algorithm, which will be used as a dimensionality reduction approach to better explain the variance of the LBP data distribution (Capitaine et al., 2021). Thus, this approach will allow us to evaluate how important each factor is influencing the final outcome (i.e. LBP presence). The process of feature selection is a type of exploratory analysis based on the Pearson’s r correlation coefficient to estimate correlations between all the variables collected and LBP. The application of random forest analysis in clinical research is considered a key step towards improving patient related health outcomes (Fernandez-Lozano et al., 2021). Clinical studies in the literature support the use of random forest analysis for classification performance and prediction, for example in the diagnosis of breast cancer using mammography imaging techniques (Aličković & Subasi, 2017). Generalised linear mixed models will be used to examine the contributions from biomechanical and psycho-social variables to predict the development of LBP. The variables included in the analysis will be selected based on previous studies (Farrokhi et al., 2017; Morgenroth et al., 2010; Sivapuratharasu et al., 2019) and the results from the random forest analysis. Generalised linear mixed models will then be created to identify the best predictors to answer research questions two, three, and four, with pain as a ‘yes/no’ binary variable, and a linear mixed effects model will investigate research question one. Significance will be accepted at p < 0.05.

Research question one

Gait analysis outcome variables and muscle activations will be modelled as the dependent variables, ‘timepoint’ will be the fixed effect of interest, and participants will be defined as a random effect (Morgenroth et al., 2009).

Research question two

Pain will be modelled as the dependent variable, ‘timepoint’ will be the fixed effect of interest, and participants will be defined as a random effect.

Research question three

Function will be modelled as the dependent variable, ‘timepoint’ and pain will be the fixed effects of interest, and participants will be defined as a random effect.

Research question four

Pain and function will be modelled as the dependent variable, ‘timepoint’, biomechanical, and psycho-social variables will be the fixed effects of interest, and participants will be defined as a random effect.

Data storage and retention

The Principal Investigator and the academic supervisor will have access to the final data set. All results will be stored (raw and anonymised) on the University of Bath data servers. Participants will provide informed consent at each visit to a testing session before participating. Data will be coded anonymously and accessed only by the research investigators. Data will be stored on a password protected PC used by the Principal Investigator for the data collection and moved onto the University of Bath servers in the next 3 hours following data collection. All data records will be anonymised. Participants who wish to receive their individual results via email will provide personal information.

All hard copies of personal data, such as informed consent forms, will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in the Principal Investigators office for 10 years. Access to this office is restricted to the Principal Investigator, the academic supervisor Dr Elena Seminati and Dr Dario Cazzola.

During the study each participant will be assigned a unique project code, which will be used to identify the participant anonymously. Participants will not be identifiable from any resulting data, which may be published in journals or presented at meetings/conferences. Data and patient information will be collected in accordance with the confidentially NHS Code of Practice, and all information will be subject to the conditions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Ethics and dissemination

This research has ethical approval from East of England - Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee HRA ethics (REC reference: 23/EE/0090), granted on 28/04/23. Informed written consent is obtained from the participants by the principal investigator who is a trained research personnel. The study results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed clinical biomechanics journal, and disseminated through conference presentations.

Patient & public involvement

Patient and public involvement input was obtained via a patient advisory group at the Portsmouth Enablement Centre reviewing the participant information sheet and lay summary in order to obtain feedback and identify any jargon/medical terms which may need revising. This process ensured that the questions and aims/objectives of the present study are aligned with the patient experience and expectations.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Informed written consent for publication of individual person’s data in this manuscript was obtained.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was funded by the University Research Studentship Award (URSA) of the University of Bath.

Authors’ contributions

A.W.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. D.C.: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision. A.T.: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision. E.S.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank the clinicians Dr Shigong Gou and Helen Harvey (Bristol Centre for Enablement), and Chantel Ostler (Portsmouth Enablement Centre) for their feedback developing the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study. We also thank the physiotherapists Anne Harrill (Bristol Centre for Enablement) and Matthias Wright (Portsmouth Enablement Centre) for their help with identifying patients who meet the inclusion criteria and coordinating patient bookings, and all the patients who took part in the study.

Abedi M, Okhovatian F, Heydarpour M, Daryabor A, Akbarzadeh A. (2021). Reliability and validity of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia questionnaire in individuals with non-specific low back pain. Middle East J Rehabilitation Health Stud, 8(4), e115185.
Actis J, Nolasco L, Gates D, Silverman A. Lumbar loads and trunk kinematics in people with a transtibial amputation during sit-to-stand. J Biomech. 2018;69:1–9.
Aličković E, Subasi A. Breast cancer diagnosis using GA feature selection and Rotation Forest. Neural Comput Appl. 2017;28(4):753–63.
Breakey J. Gait of unilateral below-knee amputees. J Prosthetics Orthot. 1976;30(3):17–24.
Buchbinder R, Blyth F, March L, Brooks P, Woolf A, Hoy D. Placing the global burden of low back pain in context. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013;27(5):575–89.
Cansever A, Uzun O, Yildiz C, Ates A, Atesalp S, A. Depression in men with traumatic lower part amputation: A comparison to men with surgical lower part amputation. Mil Med. 2003;168(2):106–9.
Capitaine L, Genuer R, Thiébaut R. Random forests for high-dimensional longitudinal data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021;30(1):166–84.
Chou R, Shekelle P. Will this patient develop persistent disabling low back pain? JAMA: J Am Med Association. 2010;303(13):1295–302.
Davis R. Phantom sensation, phantom pain, and stump pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(1):79–91.
De Asha A, Robinson M, Barton G. A marker based kinematic method of identifying initial contact during gait suitable for use in real-time visual feedback applications. Gait Posture. 2012;36(3):650–2.
Devan H, Hendrick P, Ribeiro D, Hale A, L., Carman A. Asymmetrical movements of the lumbopelvic region: Is this a potential mechanism for low back pain in people with lower limb amputation? Med Hypotheses. 2014;82(1):77–85.
Dillingham T, Pezzin L, Mackenzie E. Limb amputation and limb deficiency: epidemiology and recent trends in the United States. South Med J. 2002;95(8):875–83.
Dillon MP, Fatone S, Quigley M. Uncertainty with long-term predictions of lower-limb amputation prevalence and what this means for prosthetic and orthotic research. J Prosthetics Orthot. 2018;30(3):122–3.
Ebrahimzadeh M, Kachooei A, Soroush M, Hasankhani E, Razi S, Birjandinejad A. Long-term clinical outcomes of war-related hip disarticulation and transpelvic amputation. J Bone Joint Surg. 2013;95(16):E114.
Ehde D, Smith D, Czerniecki J, Campbell K, Malchow D, Robinson L. Back pain as a secondary disability in persons with lower limb amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(6):731–4.
Ephraim P, Wegener S, MacKenzie E, Dillingham T, Pezzin L. Phantom pain, residual limb pain, and back pain in amputees: results of a national survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(10):1910–9.
Ezzatvar Y, García-Hermoso A. Global estimates of diabetes-related amputations incidence in 2010–2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2023;195:110194–110194.
Farrokhi S, Mazzone B, Schneider M, Gombatto S, Mayer J, Highsmith M, Hendershot B. Biopsychosocial risk factors associated with chronic low back pain after lower limb amputation. Med Hypotheses. 2017;108:1–9.
Fernandez-Lozano C, Hervella P, Mato-Abad V, Rodríguez-Yáñez M, Suárez-Garaboa S, López-Dequidt I, Estany-Gestal A, Sobrino T, Campos F, Castillo J, Rodríguez-Yáñez S, Iglesias-Rey R. Random forest-based prediction of stroke outcome. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10071.
Foote C, Kinnon J, Robbins C, Pessagno R, Portner M. Long-term health and quality of life experiences of Vietnam veterans with combat-related limb loss. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):2853–61.
Friel K, Domholdt E, Smith D. Physical and functional measures related to low back pain in individuals with lower-limb amputation: An exploratory pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(2):155–66.
Gailey R, Allen K, Castles J, Kucharik J, Roeder M. Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(1):15–30.
Golbranson FL. The use of gait analysis to study gait patterns of the lower limb amputee. Bull Prosthet Res. 1980;10(34):96–7.
Golbranson FL. The use of gait analysis to study gait patterns of the lower limb amputee. Bull Prosthet Res. 1981;10(35):153–5.
Hammarlund C, Carlström M, Melchior R, Persson B. Prevalence of back pain, its effect on functional ability and health-related quality of life in lower limb amputees secondary to trauma or tumour: A comparison across three levels of amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(1):97–105.
Helm P, Engel T, Holm A, Kristiansen VB, Rosendahl S. Function after lower limb amputation. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986;57(2):154–7.
Hermens H, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10(5):361–74.
Hoogendoorn W, Van Poppel M, Bongers P, Koes B, Bouter L, Hoogendoorn L. Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain. Spine. 2000;25(16):2114–25.
Horsak B, Pobatschnig B, Baca A, Greber-Platzer S, Kreissl A, Nehrer S, Wondrasch B, Crevenna R, Keilani M, Kranzl A. Within-assessor reliability and minimal detectable change of gait kinematics in a young obese demographic. Gait Posture. 2017;54:112–8.
Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(6):769–81.
Hungerford D, Cockin J. (1975). Fate of the retained lower limb joints in Second World War amputees. Proceedings and reports of universities, colleges, councils, and associations. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 57(B1), 111.
Imam B, Miller WC, Finlayson HC, Eng JJ, Jarus T. Incidence of lower limb amputation in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2017;108(4):e374–80.
Jensen T, Krebs B, Nielsen J, Rasmussen P. Phantom limb, phantom pain and stump pain in amputees during the first 6 months following limb amputation. Pain (Amsterdam). 1983;17(3):243–56.
Jensen T, Krebs B, Nielsen J, Rasmussen P. Immediate and long-term phantom limb pain in amputees: Incidence, clinical characteristics and relationship to pre-amputation limb pain. Pain (Amsterdam). 1985;21(3):267–78.
Johannes C, Le T, Zhou X, Johnston J, Dworkin R. The prevalence of chronic pain in United States adults: Results of an internet-based survey. J Pain. 2010;11(11):1230–9.
Katz J. Lumbar disc disorders and low-back pain: Socioeconomic factors and consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 2):21–4.
Keller S, Bann C, Dodd S, Schein J, Mendoza T, Cleeland C. Validity of the Brief Pain Inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(5):309–18.
Khodadadeh S, Eisenstein S, Summers B, Patrick J. Gait asymmetry in patients with chronic low back pain. Neuro-Orthopedics. 1988;6:24–7.
Koes B, Van Tulder M, Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ. 2006;332(7555):1430–4.
Kulkarni J, Gaine WJ, Buckley JG, Rankine JJ, Adams J. Chronic low back pain in traumatic lower limb amputees. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(1):81–6.
Lemaire E, Fisher F. Osteoarthritis and elderly amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(10):1094–9.
Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falco FJE, Benyamin RM, Hirsch JA. Epidemiology of low back pain in adults. Neuromodulation. 2014;17(S2):3–10.
Markfelder T, Pauli P. Fear of pain and pain intensity: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychol Bull. 2020;146(5):411–50.
Meffen A, Houghton JSM, Nickinson ATO, Pepper CJ, Sayers RD, Gray LJ. Understanding variations in reported epidemiology of major lower extremity amputation in the UK: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):E053599.
Mehryar P, Shourijeh M, Maqbool H, Torabi M, Dehghani-Sanij A. (2016). Muscle synergy analysis in transtibial amputee during ramp ascending activity. 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 1676–1679.
Morgenroth D, Orendurff M, Shakir A, Segal A, Shofer J, Czerniecki J. The relationship between lumbar spine kinematics during gait and low-back pain in transfemoral amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(8):635–43.
Nikolajsen L, Ilkjær S, Krøner K, Christensen J, Jensen T. The influence of preamputation pain on postamputation stump and phantom pain. Pain (Amsterdam). 1997;72(3):393–405.
Pantall A, Ewins D. Muscle activity during stance phase of walking: Comparison of males with transfemoral amputation with osseointegrated fixations to nondisabled male volunteers. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(4):499–514.
Picavet H, Vlaeyen J, Schouten J. Pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia: Predictors of chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(11):1028–34.
Pincus T, Burton A, Vogel S, Field A. A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine (Philadelphia Pa 1976). 2002;27(5):E109–120.
Pizzolato C, Lloyd DG, Sartori M, Ceseracciu E, Besier TF, Fregly BJ, Reggiani M. CEINMS: A toolbox to investigate the influence of different neural control solutions on the prediction of muscle excitation and joint moments during dynamic motor tasks. J Biomech. 2015;48(14):3929–36.
Pohjolainen T, Alaranta H. Predictive factors of functional ability after lower-limb amputation. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1991;80(1):36–9.
Rajagopal A, Dembia C, DeMers M, Delp D, Hicks J, Delp S. Full-body musculoskeletal model for muscle-driven simulation of human gait. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;63(10):2068–79.
Sadowski P, Battista S, Leuzzi G, Sansone L, Testa M. Low back pain in people with lower limb amputation. Spine. 2022;47(22):1599–606.
Sanders J, Daly CH, Burgess EM. Clinical measurement of normal and shear stresses on a trans-tibial stump: characteristics of wave-form shapes during walking. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17(1):38–48.
Sauter CN, Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR. Functional outcomes of persons who underwent dysvascular lower extremity amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92(4):287–96.
Shin M, Yang H, Yang H, Kim D, Ahn B, Kwon H, Sim W. Effects of lumbar strengthening exercise in lower-limb amputees with chronic low back pain. Annals Rehabilitation Med. 2018;42(1):59–66.
Silverman A, Fey N, Portillo A, Walden J, Bosker G, Neptune R. Compensatory mechanisms in below-knee amputee gait in response to increasing steady-state walking speeds. Gait Posture. 2008;28(4):602–9.
Singh R, Ripley D, Pentland B, Todd I, Hunter J, Hutton L, Philip A. Depression and anxiety symptoms after lower limb amputation: The rise and fall. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(3):281–6.
Sivapuratharasu B, Bull A, McGregor A. Understanding low back pain in traumatic lower limb amputees: A systematic review. Archives Rehabilitation Res Clin Translation. 2019;1(1–2):100007.
Skinner HB, Effeney DJ. Gait analysis in amputees. Am J Phys Med. 1985;64(2):82–9.
Smith DG, Ehde DM, Legro M, Reiber GE, del Aguila M, Boone D. Phantom limb, residual limb and back pain after lower limb extremity amputations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;361:29–38.
Smith J, Stabbert H, Bagwell JJ, Teng H-L, Wade V, Lee S-P. Do people with low back pain walk differently? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Health Sci. 2022;11(4):450–65.
Sullivan M, Bishop S, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(4):524–32.
Swinkels-Meewisse I, Roelofs J, Schouten E, Verbeek A, Oostendorp R, Vlaeyen J. Fear of movement/(re)injury predicting chronic disabling low back pain: A prospective inception cohort study. Spine. 2006;31(6):658–64.
Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF. Validation of the brief pain inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain. 2004;5(2):133–7.
Taghipour H, Moharamzad Y, Mafi AR, Amini A, Naghizadeh MM, Soroush MR, Namavari A. Quality of life among veterans with war-related unilateral lower extremity amputation: a long-term survey in a prosthesis center in Iran. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(7):525–30.
Tranberg R, Zügner R, Kärrholm J. Improvements in hip- and pelvic motion for patients with osseointegrated trans-femoral prostheses. Gait Posture. 2010;33(2):165–8.
Wang X, Ji X. Sample size estimation in clinical research: From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Chest. 2020;158(1S):S12–20.
Wentink E, Prinsen E, Rietman J, Veltink P. Comparison of muscle activity patterns of transfemoral amputees and control subjects during walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10(1):87.
WHO. Global disability action plan 2014–2021: better health for all people with disability. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
Willson A, Anderson A, Richburg C, Muir B, Czerniecki J, Steele K, Aubin P. Full body musculoskeletal model for simulations of gait in persons with transtibial amputation. Comput Methods Biomech BioMed Eng. 2023;26(4):412–23.
Yang L, Dyer P, Carson R, Webster J, Foreman B, K., Bamberg S. Utilization of a lower extremity ambulatory feedback system to reduce gait asymmetry in transtibial amputation gait. Gait Posture. 2012;36(3):631–4.
Yuan B, Hu D, Gu S, Xiao S, Song F. The global burden of traumatic amputation in 204 countries and territories. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1258853–1258853.

No competing interests reported.

Supplementarymaterial.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Exploring the Associations between the Biomechanical and Psychological Mechanistic Pathways of Lower Back Pain Development amongst Persons with Lower-Limb Amputation

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Article Summary

INTRODUCTION

Epidemiology of limb amputations

Prevalence of lower back pain amongst persons with lower-limb amputation

Lower Back Pain Characteristics and Gait amongst Persons with Lower-Limb Amputation

Psycho-Social Risk Factors for Lower Back Pain amongst Persons with Lower-Limb Amputation

Objectives and hypotheses

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Study design

Study population

Recruitment

Study outcomes

Study procedures

Walking trials

Sit-to-stand trials

Questionnaires

Sample size

Data analysis

Statistical analysis

Research question one

Research question two

Research question three

Research question four

Data storage and retention

Ethics and dissemination

Patient & public involvement

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

Acknowledgements

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1