Education in prosthetic and orthotic training: Looking back 50 years and moving forward.

There is a long history of prosthetic and orthotic services helping to mitigate the impact of physical impairment by restoring function, and enabling and equipping the user. The training of health professionals who design, fit, and maintain prosthetic and orthotic devices has evolved over the centuries, reflecting an increase in knowledge, technology, understanding, and social attitudes in each era. Improvements in pedagogical thinking and biomechanical understanding, as well as the advent of new integrated technologies, have driven the profession over the past 50 years to modernize, evolve training and service delivery models in line with new attitudes toward clients, and search for new ways to improve users' quality of life. In this narrative review, the authors examined the evolution of prosthetic and orthotic education, the impact of changing educational techniques and technologies, and the impact of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics in that process. Through conversations with experts and review of peer-reviewed literature, accreditation documents, and the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics records and databases, the authors identified three areas of change in prosthetics and orthotics education over the past 50 years: (1) prosthetic/orthotic curriculum content, (2) pedagogy and course delivery, and (3) internships/residencies. This narrative review is a snapshot of a growing profession and we can only speculate where the next 50 years will lead us as we strive to serve patients, ever placing their needs and aspirations at the center of this professional service.

Selection of an above or below-ankle orthosis for individuals with neuropathic partial foot amputation: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists for the orthotic management for individuals diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy and partial foot amputation. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examined differences in balance and pressure distribution while individuals wore foot orthoses inside shoes (BA) and this same orthosis combined with an above-ankle (AABA) orthosis. STUDY DESIGN: Within-group repeated measures crossover design. METHODS: Participants with transmetatarsal amputation were assessed during randomized visits with the two interventions. Using a motion analysis system and force plates, we computed the instantaneous inclination angle between the center of mass and center of pressure to quantify balance. The F-Scan in-shoe sensor system was used to measure plantar pressures. RESULTS: Improvement in balance was measured with the use of the AABA orthosis for the participant who had the greatest time from the timed up and go test (TUG). Plantar pressure during terminal stance did not change between the two conditions. And, lack of ankle mobility appears to lead to less compliance. CONCLUSION: Only individuals with reduced mobility may have improved balance with an orthosis that extends above the ankle. The TUG score may be an effective clinical exam to differentiate those individuals who may benefit from an AABA design as compared to a BA design. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Orthotic interventions aim to improve balance and distribute plantar pressures. This study suggests that the different effects on balance while walking with the BA and AABA devices are individually specific and the TUG outcome measure may provide a useful means to determine the appropriate intervention.