Participants from both groups reported satisfaction with three aspects of their prostheses: appearance, function, and overall satisfaction. No significant differences were found in these aspects between the two groups. The results of our study contradict those reported previously by Dillingham et al. and Pezzin et al., who found low satisfaction with prosthetic devices despite high reported use of prostheses among their subjects [8,17]. The difference in the results could be due to the different study samples. These two published studies targeted civilian populations, whereas our study involved veterans. Our objective in collecting satisfaction data was to examine differences between a group that preferred to use prostheses for mobility-related activities and a group that preferred to use wheelchairs. Our results did not identify satisfaction as a significant indicator for selection of one mobility device over another.
Photo provided by Flickr
Individuals in our study were using prostheses and wheelchairs differently for various functional activities. Degree of difficulty performing these activities, however, depended on amputation level and type of mobility device used. For individuals with higher amputation levels, 72 percent reported traversing a ramp using a wheelchair without difficulty, whereas 90 percent of participants in the prosthesis group with higher amputation level reported difficulty performing this activity. The proportion of veterans who reported getting in and out of cars and buses without difficulty was 100 percent for higher level amputees using a wheelchair versus 60 percent for higher level amputees using a prosthesis. For carrying 10 lb of groceries, the proportions were significantly different: higher level amputees using wheelchairs reported performing this activity without difficulty (100%), while those using prostheses reported difficulty (56%). For physically intense activities like performing sports and other leisure activities, the proportion of wheelchair use with ease was 100 percent as compared with 38 percent of prosthesis use with difficulty, with 25 percent reporting inability to perform the activity. In the comparable study by Gauthier-Gagnon et al., only 42 percent of prosthesis users and 2 percent of nonusers reported performing the same task without any outside help . The differences in results could be due to our use of the OPUS to collect data related to functional performance; the study by Gauthier-Gagnon et al. used the Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee (PPA) scale . The PPA asks individuals to rate degree of difficulty in performing an activity while wearing their prosthesis, while the OPUS allows respondents to choose between use of prosthesis or other mobility device (wheelchair) and then rate the difficulty level. Despite the difference in questioning strategies, results from both studies suggested a direct relation between increased levels of difficulty in task performance and prosthesis use.
Adaptive prosthetics for the lower extremity
Photo provided by Flickr
All the 578 bilateral lower limbs amputees of the Iraq-Iran war who were members of Iranian Shahid organization and served by the same organization were invited to participate in health assessment project (2006-2007). A multidisciplinary team included physician, dermatologist, orthopedic surgeon, prosthetist, physical therapist and rehabilitation medicine specialist assessed all participants separately. The members of research team performed reviewing of wartime medical records, updating history and physical examination as well as completion of the questionnaires.
Outcomes in amputation | Prosthesis | Amputation
This example specifies that angiography only confirmedwhat was found on MRA, which probably didnot change the intent to treat, so diagnostic angiographymay not be separately reported. If the findings didchange the intended treatment, 75710-52 (RS&I unilaterallower extremity with reduced-services modifierbecause the entire extremity was not studied) would beappropriate for reporting the diagnostic angiographicportion of the procedure.
The bilateral lower limb amputee at the above ..
For functional performance, we compiled amputation levels (lower amputation level and higher amputation level) with prosthesis or wheelchair use to create four subgroups: (1) lower amputation level using wheelchair, (2) lower amputation level using prosthesis, (3) higher amputation level using wheelchair, and (4) higher amputation level using prosthesis. This grouping was done primarily to control for any confounding effect that the amputation level may have on selection of mobility devices and on self-reported degrees of difficulty in functional task performance. Responses to the questions related to the level of difficulty with daily tasks were also combined to form three categories: (1) easy, (2) difficult, and (3) cannot perform activity. The associations between use of prosthesis/wheelchair and level of difficulty were determined with use of chi-square (Fisher's exact) statistics. We identified the most influential case(s) in a significant association by analyzing standardized residuals. Satisfaction levels (e.g., aesthetics, functional performance, and overall satisfaction) between the prosthesis group and the wheelchair group were investigated with use of independent -tests. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 15.0 (SPSS, Inc; Chicago, Illinois) with a significance level of 0.05 established a priori. To determine influential case(s), we used a cutoff value of 2.0 for standardized residual of chi-square (Fisher's exact) statistics.