Prosthesis Experience and Satisfaction in Unilateral Transtibial Amputees: A Patient-Reported Outcome Study
Keywords:
Prosthesis satisfaction, SATPRO, TAPES, Transtibial amputation, User experienceAbstract
Purpose: Prosthesis satisfaction and user experience are critical components of successful rehabilitation following lower-limb amputation. This study aimed to assess prosthesis experience and satisfaction in unilateral transtibial amputees and to investigate potential differences based on amputation etiology and prosthesis type.
Methods: A total of 31 unilateral transtibial amputees with at least one year of prosthesis use completed an online assessment. The Turkish versions of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) and the Satisfaction with Prosthesis Questionnaire (SATPRO) were used to evaluate psychosocial adjustment, activity restriction, and device satisfaction.
Results: TAPES activity restriction scores were significantly higher in dysvascular amputees compared to those with traumatic or other etiologies (p = 0.043). Dysvascular amputees also demonstrated significantly lower satisfaction regarding prosthesis weight (p = 0.046). No significant differences were observed among the three prosthesis suspension systems in either SATPRO or TAPES satisfaction domains (p > 0.05). A strong positive correlation was found between SATPRO total scores and TAPES prosthesis satisfaction subscales (r = 0.663, p = 0.001).
Conclusion: Amputation etiology, particularly dysvascular causes, appears to significantly influence activity restriction and specific satisfaction domains in transtibial amputees. However, the type of prosthetic suspension system did not significantly affect overall satisfaction in this cohort. These findings provide preliminary population-specific data for Turkish amputees and highlight the need for larger-scale studies to further explore the determinants of prosthesis satisfaction.
References
1. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ. Limb amputation and limb deficiency: Epidemiology and recent trends in the United States. South Med J. 2002;95(8):875-883.
2. Atallah H, Alshawabka A, Alfatafta M, Alkhatib T, Taher M, Saqer W, et al. Assessing lower-limb prosthetic users with the trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scale-revised: A ccross-sectional study. J Clin Med, 2026;15(3), 1291.
3. Baars EC, Schrier E, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB. Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees: A systematic review of associated factors and questionnaires. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(39):e12296.
4. Schürmann T, Beckerle P, Preller J, Vogt J, Christ O. Theoretical implementation of prior knowledge in the design of a multi-scale prosthesis satisfaction questionnaire. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15(Suppl 3):143.
5. da Silva R, Rizzo JG, Gutierres Filho PJ, Ramos V, Deans S. Physical activity and quality of life of amputees in southern Brazil. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(4):432-438.
6. McDonald S, Sharpe L, MacCann C, Blaszczynski A. The role of body ımage on psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes and people with an amputation. Front Psychol. 2021;11:614369.
7. Silva ADM, Furtado G, Dos Santos IP, da Silva CB, Caldas LR, Bernardes KO, et al. Functional capacity of elderly with lower-limb amputation after prosthesis rehabilitation: a longitudinal study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(5):556-560.
8. Alavi T, Jalali M, Farahmand B, Babaee T. Predictors of quality of life in individuals with non-traumatic unilateral transtibial amputation. PloS One, 2025;20(7), e0327781.
9. Topuz S, Ülger Ö, Yakut Y, Şener, FG. reliability and construct validity of the turkish version of the trinity amputation and prosthetic experience scales (tapes) in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(2):201-206.
10. Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales (tapes). Rehabil. Psychol. 2000; 45(2):130.
11. Simsek S, Sener F, Yakut Y. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of satisfaction with the prosthesis questionnaire in unilateral lower extremity amputees: a pilot study. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2010;21(2).
12. Bilodeau S, Hébert R, Desrosiers J. Questionnaire sur la satisfaction des personnes amputées du membre inférieur face à leur prothèse: développement et validation [Questionnaire on the satisfaction of persons with lower-limb amputations towards their prosthesis: development and validation]. Can J Occup Ther. 1999;66(1):23-32.
13. Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales (tapes). Rehabil Psychol, 2000;45(2), 130.
14. Bilodeau S, Hébert R, Desrosiers J. Questionnaire sur la satisfaction des personnes amputees du membre inférieur face à leur prothèse: développement et validation. Can J Occup Ther 1999; 66: 23–32.
15. Şimşek İE, Şener G, Yakut Y. Unilateral alt ekstremite amputelerinde protez memnuniyeti anketi’nin Türkçe güvenirliği ve geçerliği: pilot çalışma. Fizyoter Rehabil. 21(2): 81-86. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Satisfaction with the Prosthesis Questionnaire in unilateral lower extremity amputees: a pilot study.
16. Mukaka MM. A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med 2012;24(3), 69.
17. Quigley M, Dillon MP. Quality of life in persons with partial foot or transtibial amputation: A systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(1):18-30.
18. Imam B, Miller WC, Finlayson HC, Eng JJ, Jarus T. Lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation in canada: A survey study. Physiother Can. 2019;71(1):11-21.
19. Dillon MP, Quigley M, Stevens P, Balasanov Y, Anderson SP. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in people living with partial foot or transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(10):1711-1719.
20. Wezenberg D, Cutti AG, Bruno A, Houdijk H. Differentiation between solid-ankle cushioned heel and energy storage and return prosthetic foot based on step-to-step transition cost. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(10):1579-1590.
21. Wurdeman SR, Stevens PM, Campbell JH. Mobility analysis of amputees (maat 6): Mobility, satisfaction, and quality of life among long-term dysvascular/diabetic prosthesis users-results of a cross-sectional analysis. J Prosthet Orthot. 2021;33(3):161-167.
22. Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S. The effects of suction and pin/lock suspension systems on transtibial amputees' gait performance. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e94520. Published 2014 May 14.
23. Duygu SÇ, Anaforoğlu B, Erbahçeci F. A comparison of the effects of pin and Vacuum-Assisted suspension systems in individuals with transtibial amputation. JPO. 2023;35(1):25-31.
24. Sindwani P, Chauhan P, Shahanawaz SD, Kautiya S, Alsham-mari QT. Health related quality of life and prosthetic satisfaction in unilateral knee amputated patients: a systematic review. Eur J Mol Clin Med, 2023;10(1), 2419-33.
25. Unal ZK, Cankurtaran D, Akyuz EU. Evaluation of prosthesis satisfaction, psychological status, and quality of life in lower-extremity amputee patients: A pilot study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 2024;114(2).
26. Cairns N, Murray K, Corney J, McFadyen A. Satisfaction with cosmesis and priorities for cosmesis design reported by lower limb amputees in the United Kingdom: instrument development and results. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38(6):467-473.
27. Murray CD, Fox J. Body image and prosthesis satisfaction in the lower limb amputee. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(17):925-931.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Emre Çayırlı, Nale Hande İşçi, Esra Atılgan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
