Use of Powered Prosthesis for Children with Upper Limb Deficiency at Hyogo Rehabilitation Center

Background There has been no research investigating the use of powered prosthetic for children in Japan. Objective To gain better insight into the state of powered prosthesis usage and identify a ratio of rejection among children. Methods Subjects were 37 unilateral below elbow amputees between the ages of 0 and 16 at the time of their first experienced fitting with a powered prosthesis at our Center. The information was collected from medical records and through face-to-face interviews, and we examined rejection rate and the factors affecting the use of powered prosthesis. Results The rate of discontinuation was 21.6% as 8 of the 37 children stopped using powered prosthesis. All of them were fitted their prosthesis after 2 years of age, and they rejected prosthesis between 5 to 19 years. We found that the level of amputation had no influence on the use of a powered prosthesis. Conclusions Children fitted before 2 years of age tend to accept their powered prosthesis than those fitted after 2 years. Multidisciprinary team approach, adequate rehabilitation, detailed follow-up and involvement of parents are quite important for introducing powered prosthesis for children.

[1]  J. Shaperman,et al.  Infant prosthetic fitting. A study of the results. , 1965, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[2]  C Myers,et al.  The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. Official publication of The American Occupational Therapy Association. , 1971, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[3]  E. Trefler,et al.  Prostheses for children with unilateral congenital absence of the hand. , 1972, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[4]  H R Galway,et al.  A long-term review of children with congenital and acquired upper limb deficiency. , 1983, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[5]  M. Mendez.  Evaluation of a myoelectric prosthesis for young children with a single below elbow absence , 1985 .

[6]  M. Mendez.  Evaluation of a myoelectric hand prosthesis for children with a below-elbow absence , 1985, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[7]  W F Sauter,et al.  Management of the upper-limb-deficient child with a powered prosthetic device. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  Comprehensive Management of the Upper-Limb Amputee , 1989 .

[9]  R. Sörbye.  Upper-Extremity Amputees: Swedish Experiences Concerning Children , 1989 .

[10]  R. H. Meier,et al.  Comprehensive Management of the Upper-Limb Amputee , 1989, Springer New York.

[11]  J. Edelstein,et al.  Performance comparison among children fitted with myoelectric and body-powered hands. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  D. Datta,et al.  Powered prosthetic hands in very young children , 1998, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[13]  K Postema,et al.  Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[14]  F. Routhier,et al.  Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec rehabilitation institute , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  M. Breedijk,et al.  Prosthetic management of children in the Netherlands with upper limb deficiencies , 2001, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[16]  C. K. van der Sluis,et al.  Prescription of the First Prosthesis and Later use in Children with Congenital Unilateral Upper Limb Deficiency: A Systematic Review , 2006, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[17]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper-Limb Prosthetics: Critical Factors in Device Abandonment , 2007, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.