A Small-Scale Survey of Bilateral Upper-Limb Loss Individuals

IF 0.4 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics Pub Date : 2021-10-13 DOI:10.1097/JPO.0000000000000392
H. H. Sears, K. Doolan, Denise D. Keenan
{"title":"A Small-Scale Survey of Bilateral Upper-Limb Loss Individuals","authors":"H. H. Sears, K. Doolan, Denise D. Keenan","doi":"10.1097/JPO.0000000000000392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction Bilateral upper-limb loss (Bil UL Loss) is perhaps the greatest challenge for upper-limb prosthetic care, now even more than ever as we witness the increase of sepsis as a cause of limb loss. Methods This small-n survey has recruited 28 individuals with Bil UL Loss, 27 of whom are prosthesis wearers. Twelve of the 28 lost four limbs to sepsis; 17 of the 27 prosthesis wearers use body-powered hooks, six use electric hooks, and four use electric hands as their dominant terminal device (within this report, dominant side is the wearer's postloss dominant side, i.e., the side the subject used more frequently). The survey used person-to-person interviews to compile the broad data about how tasks are performed, how many tasks are performed, whether two prostheses are used, and other details. Results Users of each type of prosthesis demonstrate a high level of function. Electric hook users scored slightly higher in number of tasks and other measures. However, no outcomes were significant statistically, except the use of the dominant side prosthesis, which was three times higher than the nondominant side usage. Users identified a dozen categories for desired improvements, with greater dependability and greater grip security as the most commonly requested. Discussion The information will be useful for not only for clinical guidance, but hopefully also to help guide the development of future prosthetic devices, considering that the disabled community has called for prioritizing the actual needs and desires of the consumers to guide future developments. Conclusions The planning and execution of this small-scale study could be a model for other groups to collect useful outcomes data without requiring a research grant, without large institutional oversight, and by only a small group of interested professionals with access to a reasonable number of individuals with a severe disability. Clinical Relevance All caregivers of individuals with bilateral limb loss could benefit from both the data presented and the challenges revealed by this survey group. Future prosthetic designs as well as training and other therapies will also hopefully benefit from the needs expressed directly by these consumers.","PeriodicalId":53702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics","volume":"34 1","pages":"95 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction Bilateral upper-limb loss (Bil UL Loss) is perhaps the greatest challenge for upper-limb prosthetic care, now even more than ever as we witness the increase of sepsis as a cause of limb loss. Methods This small-n survey has recruited 28 individuals with Bil UL Loss, 27 of whom are prosthesis wearers. Twelve of the 28 lost four limbs to sepsis; 17 of the 27 prosthesis wearers use body-powered hooks, six use electric hooks, and four use electric hands as their dominant terminal device (within this report, dominant side is the wearer's postloss dominant side, i.e., the side the subject used more frequently). The survey used person-to-person interviews to compile the broad data about how tasks are performed, how many tasks are performed, whether two prostheses are used, and other details. Results Users of each type of prosthesis demonstrate a high level of function. Electric hook users scored slightly higher in number of tasks and other measures. However, no outcomes were significant statistically, except the use of the dominant side prosthesis, which was three times higher than the nondominant side usage. Users identified a dozen categories for desired improvements, with greater dependability and greater grip security as the most commonly requested. Discussion The information will be useful for not only for clinical guidance, but hopefully also to help guide the development of future prosthetic devices, considering that the disabled community has called for prioritizing the actual needs and desires of the consumers to guide future developments. Conclusions The planning and execution of this small-scale study could be a model for other groups to collect useful outcomes data without requiring a research grant, without large institutional oversight, and by only a small group of interested professionals with access to a reasonable number of individuals with a severe disability. Clinical Relevance All caregivers of individuals with bilateral limb loss could benefit from both the data presented and the challenges revealed by this survey group. Future prosthetic designs as well as training and other therapies will also hopefully benefit from the needs expressed directly by these consumers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双侧上肢缺失个体的小规模调查
摘要简介双侧上肢丢失(Bil UL loss)可能是上肢假肢护理面临的最大挑战,现在甚至比以往任何时候都更大,因为我们目睹了败血症作为肢体丢失原因的增加。方法本次小n调查共招募了28名Bil UL丢失患者,其中27人为假体佩戴者。28人中有12人因败血症失去四肢;27名假肢佩戴者中有17人使用身体供电的挂钩,6人使用电动挂钩,4人使用电动手作为主要终端设备(在本报告中,主要侧是佩戴者丢失后的主要侧,即受试者更频繁使用的侧)。这项调查使用了人与人之间的访谈来汇编关于如何执行任务、执行了多少任务、是否使用了两个假肢以及其他细节的广泛数据。结果每种假体的使用者都表现出较高的功能水平。电钩用户在任务数量和其他指标上得分略高。然而,除了使用优势侧假体外,没有任何结果具有统计学意义,优势侧假体的使用量是非优势侧假体使用量的三倍。用户确定了十几个需要改进的类别,其中最常见的要求是更高的可靠性和更高的抓握安全性。讨论考虑到残疾人社区呼吁优先考虑消费者的实际需求和愿望,以指导未来的发展,这些信息不仅有助于临床指导,而且有望帮助指导未来假肢设备的开发。结论这项小规模研究的规划和执行可以成为其他群体收集有用结果数据的一个模式,而无需研究拨款,无需大型机构监督,也只有一小群感兴趣的专业人员可以接触到合理数量的严重残疾者。临床相关性所有双侧肢体丧失患者的护理人员都可以从该调查组提供的数据和揭示的挑战中受益。未来的假肢设计、训练和其他疗法也有望从这些消费者直接表达的需求中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: Published quarterly by the AAOP, JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics provides information on new devices, fitting and fabrication techniques, and patient management experiences. The focus is on prosthetics and orthotics, with timely reports from related fields such as orthopaedic research, occupational therapy, physical therapy, orthopaedic surgery, amputation surgery, physical medicine, biomedical engineering, psychology, ethics, and gait analysis. Each issue contains research-based articles reviewed and approved by a highly qualified editorial board and an Academy self-study quiz offering two PCE''s.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Physical Therapy and Orthosis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Medial Knee Osteoarthritis Blood Pressure Regulation in Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation: Effects of Wearing a Prosthesis Motion Analysis of a Frontal Plane Adaptable Prosthetic Foot Immediate Effect of Soft Lumbosacral Orthosis on Trunk Stability and Upper-Limb Functionality in Children with Cerebral Palsy Importance of Health Policy and Systems Research for Strengthening Rehabilitation in Health Systems: A Call to Action to Accelerate Progress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1