Enabling factors related to prosthetic use by people with transtibial and transfemoral amputation.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the frequency and extent of prosthetic use by people with lower limb amputation and identify factors that facilitate prosthetic use. DESIGN AND SETTING Five-year follow-up survey using the Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee (PPA) questionnaire and Dillman's mailing strategy. SUBJECTS Adults with unilateral transtibial and transfemoral amputation (n = 396) who had completed a prosthetic training program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Frequency of prosthetic wear, in hours per week, and active prosthetic use for locomotion indoors and outdoors. RESULTS Eighty-five percent of the respondents (mean age 62.9+/-15.9yrs) were prosthetic wearers; 53% used their prosthesis for locomotion indoors, and 64% outdoors. Ability to don the prosthesis (p < .001), locomotor capabilities with the prosthesis (p < .001), walking distances (p < .001), automaticity of gait (p < .05), and assistive devices used (p < .001) were the main factors related to the three outcome measures. People with transfemoral amputation reported greater difficulties in donning their prosthesis (p < .01) and a significantly higher rate of falls (p < .001). CONCLUSION The majority of people with lower limb amputation wear their prosthesis daily. With the exception of resources (prosthetic laboratory and means of transportation), all enabling factors investigated were significantly associated with the outcome measures.

[1]  H. Alaranta,et al.  Primary survival and prosthetic fitting of lower limb amputees , 1989, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[2]  I. Mccoll,et al.  Rehabilitation after lower limb amputation: A comparative study of above‐knee, through‐knee and Gritti—Stokes amputations , 1989, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  Diane Potvin,et al.  Predisposing Factors Related to Prosthetic Use by People with a Transtibial and Transfemoral Amputation , 1998 .

[4]  J Siemiatycki,et al.  Nonresponse bias and early versus all responders in mail and telephone surveys. , 1984, American journal of epidemiology.

[5]  P. Renström,et al.  Function after through-knee compared with below-knee and above-knee amputation , 1992, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[6]  C. Gauthier-Gagnon,et al.  Prosthetic profile of people with lower extremity amputation: conception and design of a follow-up questionnaire. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  Problems Experienced and Perceived by Prosthetic Patients , 1993 .

[8]  R. Ingram,et al.  Lower limb amputation following injury: a survey of long-term functional outcome. , 1994, Injury.

[9]  B Christensen,et al.  The effect of prosthetic rehabilitation in lower limb amputees , 1995, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[10]  C. Beekman,et al.  Prosthetic use in elderly patients with dysvascular above-knee and through-knee amputations. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[11]  S. Wood-Dauphinée,et al.  Reintegration to Normal Living as a proxy to quality of life. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[12]  H. Alaranta,et al.  Predictive factors of functional ability after lower-limb amputation. , 1991, Annales chirurgiae et gynaecologiae.

[13]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[14]  D. Wade,et al.  Functional outcome of lower limb amputees with peripheral vascular disease , 1992 .

[15]  J. Pell,et al.  Quality of life following lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease. , 1993, European journal of vascular surgery.

[16]  C. Gauthier-Gagnon,et al.  Prosthetic profile of the amputee questionnaire: validity and reliability. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[17]  Lawrence W. Green,et al.  Health Education Planning: A Diagnostic Approach , 1979 .

[18]  G. Lankhorst,et al.  Functional outcome of lower-limb amputees: A prospective descriptive study in a general hospital , 1996, Prosthetics and orthotics international.