Enhancing Performance and Quality of Life in Lower Limb Amputees: Physical Activity, a Valuable Tool—A Scoping Review

TL;DR

This review explores how physical activity can improve quality of life and performance in people with lower limb amputations, finding that personalized training is key.

Contribution

The study provides a scoping review of physical activity interventions for lower limb amputees, highlighting the need for personalized approaches.

Findings

Physical activity interventions improve quality of life and performance in lower limb amputees.

Personalized training and long-term planning are recommended for optimal outcomes.

No single intervention is proven more effective than others, but each benefits specific outcomes.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Lower limb amputation (LLA) negatively affects the physical and psychological health of individuals, leading to a lower quality of life and sedentary lifestyle. The objective of this scoping review is to search for evidence regarding physical activity interventions in individuals with LLA, investigating improvements in specific outcomes related to quality of life and performance. Methods: PRISMA guidelines—extension for scoping reviews—were used to structure the study. The research was conducted between 26 July 2023 and 30 September 2023; it was structured by defining two PICO questions (P = amputation, I = physical exercise, O1 = quality of life, and O2 = performance) through Pubmed, Cochrane, and Pedro databases. The study included subjects with LLA of any etiology, in prosthetic or pre-prosthetic phase, practicing non-competitive physical activity. The results were then subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results: Of the 615 studies identified, 18 were included in the review. They consisted of 6 systematic reviews (SR), 5 RCTs, 4 case–control studies, 1 case report (CR), and 2 cross-sectional (CS). Physical activity (PA) interventions were extremely heterogeneous and were, therefore, categorized into 6 modalities: surveys were the most reported strategies (57%), followed by personalized training (23%), strength training (13%), endurance training (13%), combined training (2%), and gait training (5%). Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, the variety of interventions proposed and the different outcomes registered, there is no evidence that one approach is more effective than another, while each group showed benefits on different specific outcomes. In total, five outcome categories were identified: quality of life was the most frequently analysed (42%), followed by cardiovascular fitness (20%), muscular fitness (14%), gait parameters (13%), functionality and disability (11%). Conclusions: PA represents a valuable strategy for improving performance and quality of life in individuals with LLA, offering a variety of interventions. Although there is no evidence that one strategy is better than the others, each activity has proven to be effective on specific outcomes, therefore, the choice must depend on the patient’s necessities. The preferred option should be the personalization of the training according to individual needs, coupled with long-term planning and remote monitoring. Creating meeting places and supporting occasions for sports activities could be a valid option. Further research could help to clarify the benefits of such interventions and enhance the understanding of how to optimize the management of LLA patients.

Figures