15. Blair JA, Patzkowski JC, Blanck RV, Owens JG, Hsu JR, Skeletal
Trauma Research Consortium (STReC): Return to duty after integrated
orthotic and rehabilitation initiative. J Orthop Trauma 2014; 28(4): e70
–4.
16. Patzkowski JC, Owens JG, Blanck RV, Kirk KL, Hsu JR, Skeletal
Trauma Research Consortium: Management of posttraumatic osteo-
arthritis with an integrated orthotic and rehabilitation initiative. J Am
Acad Orthop Surg 2012; 20(Suppl 1): S48
–53.
17. Patzkowski JC, Owens JG, Blanck RV, Kirk KL, Hsu JR, Skeletal
Trauma Research Consortium (STReC): Deployment after limb salvage
for high-energy lower-extremity trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg
2012; 73(2 Suppl 1): S112
–5.
18. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS: The well-built
clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995;
123(3): A12
–13.
19. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Bongiorni DR, Sutton BS, Groer S, Kaufman
KR: Safety, energy ef
ficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-Leg for trans-
femoral amputees: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010;
34(4): 362
–7.
20. Kahle JT, Orriola JJ, Johnston W, Highsmith MJ: The effects of vac-
uum-sssisted suspension on residual limb physiology, wound healing
and function: a systematic review. Technol Innov 2014; 15: 333
–1.
21. Cohen J (editor): Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, Ed 2. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1988.
22. State of the Science Evidence Report Guidelines: American Academy
of Orthotists & Prosthetists. Washington DC, 2008. Available at http://
www.oandp.org/grants/MasterAgenda/AAOPEvidenceReportGuidelines
.pdf; accessed November 15, 2015.
23. Sheean AJ, Krueger CA, Hsu JR: Return to duty and disability after
combat-related hindfoot injury. J Orthop Trauma 2014; 28(11): e258
–2.
24. Haight DJ, Russell Esposito E, Wilken JM: Biomechanics of uphill
walking using custom ankle-foot orthoses of three different stiffnesses.
Gait Posture 2015; 41(3): 750
–6.
25. Russell Esposito E, Blanck RV, Harper NG, Hsu JR, Wilken JM: How
does ankle-foot orthosis stiffness affect gait in patients with lower limb
salvage? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472(10): 3026
–5.
26. Patzkowski JC, Blanck RV, Owens JG, et al: Comparative effect of
orthosis design on functional performance. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;
94(6): 507
–15.
27. Harper NG, Esposito ER, Wilken JM, Neptune RR: The in
fluence of ankle-
foot orthosis stiffness on walking performance in individuals with lower-
limb impairments. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2014; 29(8): 877
–84.
28. Harper NG, Russell EM, Wilken JM, Neptune RR: Selective laser sintered
versus carbon
fiber passive-dynamic ankle-foot orthoses: a comparison
of patient walking performance. J Biomech Eng 2014; 136(9): 091001.
29. Esposito ER, Rodriguez KM, Rabago CA, Wilken JM: Does unilateral
transtibial amputation lead to greater metabolic demand during walk-
ing? J Rehabil Res Dev 2014; 51(8): 1287
–96.
30. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al: The PRISMA statement for
reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evalu-
ate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;
339: b2700.
31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ
2009; 339: b2535.
32. MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ: Factors in
fluencing outcome following limb-
threatening lower limb trauma: lessons learned from the lower
extremity assessment project (LEAP). J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006;
14(10 Spec No.): S205
–10.
MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 181, November/December Supplement 2016
76
Outcomes Associated With the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis
MILITARY MEDICINE, 181, 11/12:77, 2016
Descriptive Characteristics and Amputation Rates With Use
of Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeleton Orthosis
LTC Owen Hill, SP USA*†; Lakmini Bulathsinhala, MPH*†; Susan L. Eskridge, PT, PhD†‡;
Kimberly Quinn, MSN, RN-BC†‡; MAJ Daniel J. Stinner, MC USA*†
ABSTRACT Advancements in ankle-foot orthotic devices, such as the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis
(IDEO), are designed to improve function and reduce pain of the injured lower extremity. There is a paucity of
research detailing the demographics, injury patterns and amputation outcomes of patients who have been prescribed an
IDEO. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographics, presenting diagnosis and patterns of amputation in
patients prescribed an IDEO at the Center for the Intrepid (CFI). The study population was comprised of 624 service
members who were treated at the CFI and prescribed an IDEO between 2009 and 2014. Data were extracted from the
Expeditionary Medical Encounter Database, Defense Manpower Data Center, Military Health System Data Repository,
and CFI patient records for demographic and injury information as well as an amputation outcome. The most common
injury category that received an IDEO prescription was injuries at or surrounding the ankle joint (25.0%), followed by
tibia injuries (17.5%) and nerve injuries below the knee (16.4%). Over 80% of the sample avoided amputation within
a one year time period using this treatment modality. Future studies should longitudinally track IDEO users for a lon-
ger term to determine the long term viability of the device.
INTRODUCTION
Improvement in U.S. military combat casualty care, coupled
with advances in surgical techniques and improved body armor,
has led to an increase in battle
field injury survival.
1
The
“wounded-to-killed ratio,” which compares the number of
wounded in action to the number who perished, currently stands
at 7.4:1 for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF).
2
Service members injured in these
current con
flicts have a survival rate that is higher than those
injured in previous con
flicts.
3
This increase in survival has led
to a substantial increase in the number of service members who
now struggle with long-term disability. In addition to battle inju-
ries, service members experience nonbattle injuries because of
training activities, physical
fitness training, as well as off-duty
accidents which can result in long-term disability.
4
Severe lower extremity injuries (LEI) make up the preponder-
ance of combat-related injuries seen in service members injured
within the OIF and OEF theatre of operations.
5,6
Data gleaned
from the Joint Theatre Trauma Registry showed that severe LEI
make up 65% of all injuries in both OIF and OEF theatre and
26% of these injuries involve a fracture, with over two thirds
complicated by concomitant open wounds.
1
Not surprisingly,
given the severity of many of these injuries, 10 to 15% of com-
bat-related amputations occur after attempts at limb reconstruc-
tion and are considered late amputations, de
fined as occurring
more than 90 days following the injury.
1,7
In a review of severe
open tibia fractures (G&A type III) sustained in combat, 16.9%
underwent early amputation whereas 5.2% underwent late ampu-
tation.
8
Those that went on to late amputation were more likely
to require free or rotational
flaps, had higher rates of deep soft
tissue
infection
or
osteomyelitis,
and
underwent
more
reoperations, all of which highlight the severity of these injuries
and complicated post-limb reconstruction clinical course.
9
Noncombat injuries can also result in severe and complex
extremity injuries. When considering the impact of noncombat
injuries, Hauret et al
3
reported that in 2009, injuries of the lower
extremity made up 35% of all noncombat injury problems
among military personnel; the most of any anatomical region.
These overuse injuries were found to have a huge impact on
mission readiness and deployment eligibility. The insurgence
of LEI and resulting disabled service members (from both bat-
tle and nonbattle environments) have brought attention to the
need for improving the rehabilitative care in the Department
of Defense.
The Center for the Intrepid (CFI), along with two other
Department of Defense Advanced Rehabilitation Centers, strives
to recuperate injured Soldiers back to duty or civilian life. An
*Center for the Intrepid, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine,
Brooke Army Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, Joint Base San
Antonio, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234.
†Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, 2748 Worth
Road, Suite 29, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6005.
‡Department of Medical Modeling and Simulation, Naval Health
Research Center, Ryne Road, #329, San Diego, CA 92152.
We are military service members (or employees of the U.S. Government).
This work was prepared as part of our of
ficial duties. Title 17, U.S.C.
§105 provides the copyright protection under this title is not available for
any work of the U.S. Government. Title 17, U.S.C. §101 de
fines a U.S.
Government work as work prepared by a military service member or
employee of the U.S. Government as part of those persons of
ficial duties.
This study was supported by work unit 60808.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily re
flect the official policy or position of the Department of the
Navy, Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Approved
for public release; distribution unlimited. Human subjects participated in this
study after giving their free and informed consent. This research has been
conducted in compliance with all applicable federal regulations governing the
protection of human subjects in research (Protocol NHRC.2003.0025).
doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00281
MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 181, November/December Supplement 2016
77