A questionnaire survey of the effect of different interface types on patient satisfaction and perceived problems among trans-tibial amputees.

The objectives were to investigate the effect of three different interface types on consumer satisfaction and perceived problems among trans-tibial amputees in the Netherlands. A postal questionnaire (based on the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire) was sent to 353 patients. Responders were classified in three groups of interface types: polyethylene foam (PEF) inserts, silicone liners (SIL), and polyurethane liners (PUL). Differences concerning satisfaction and problems between interface types were computed and adjusted for potential confounding by age, gender, reason for amputation and time since first prosthesis. A total of 220 patients responded (62%). Patients wearing liners reported a significantly poorer durability and higher maintenance time compared with patients using PEF inserts. Sum-scores for satisfaction or problems did not show any significant differences between groups. Analysis of individual items showed a significant difference only for satisfaction with sitting and with walking on uneve...

[1]  D Datta,et al.  Outcome of fitting an ICEROSS prosthesis: Views of trans-tibial amputees , 1996, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[2]  A K Dasgupta,et al.  The performance of the ICEROSS prostheses amongst transtibial amputees with a special reference to the workplace--a preliminary study. Icelandic Roll on Silicone Socket. , 1997, Occupational medicine.

[3]  Terry J. Supan,et al.  The Incidence of Dermatological Problems in the Silicone Suspension Sleeve User , 1997 .

[4]  I McCurdie,et al.  ICEROSS — a consensus view: A questionnaire survey of the use of ICEROSS in the United Kingdom , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[5]  G D Reiber,et al.  Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[6]  H. Ogata,et al.  Total surface bearing below-knee prosthesis: advantages, disadvantages, and clinical implications. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  D G Smith,et al.  Socket considerations for the patient with a transtibial amputation. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  J. Sitzia.  How valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. , 1999, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[9]  J. D. Morrison,et al.  Polyurethane gel liner usage in the Oxford Prosthetic Service , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[10]  L J Marks,et al.  Science, medicine, and the future: Artificial limbs. , 2001, BMJ.

[11]  E. Mackenzie,et al.  Use and Satisfaction with Prosthetic Devices Among Persons with Trauma-Related Amputations: A Long-Term Outcome Study , 2001, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[12]  J Gibson,et al.  Lower limb amputation. , 2001, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[13]  H. Cochrane,et al.  Lower limb amputation Part 3: Prosthetics - a 10 year literature review , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[14]  A. Stenström,et al.  Effect on gait and socket comfort in unilateral trans-tibial amputees after exchange to a polyurethane concept , 2004, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  K. Postema,et al.  Prosthetic prescription in the Netherlands: An interview with clinical experts , 2004, Prosthetics and orthotics international.