Prosthesis use in persons with lower- and upper-limb amputation

Katherine A. Raichle

The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2008 · 281 citations · 27 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

The study examined how clinical and demographic factors, including phantom and residual limb pain, influence prosthesis use among individuals with upper‑ and lower‑limb amputations. Survey data were collected from 752 lower‑limb and 107 upper‑limb amputees. In lower‑limb amputees, higher use was associated with younger age, employment, marriage, distal traumatic amputation, and absence of phantom pain, whereas use was lower when prosthesis worsened residual pain; in upper‑limb amputees, proximal amputation and lower phantom pain predicted greater use, and distal amputation and marriage predicted more frequent use, with lower‑limb amputees overall more likely to wear prostheses.

Abstract

This study identified clinical (e.g., etiology) and demographic factors related to prosthesis use in persons with upper- and lower-limb amputation (ULA and LLA, respectively) and the effect of phantom limb pain (PLP) and residual limb pain (RLP) on prosthesis use. A total of 752 respondents with LLA and 107 respondents with ULA completed surveys. Factors related to greater use (hours per day) for persons with LLA included younger age, full- or part-time employment, marriage, a distal amputation, an amputation of traumatic etiology, and an absence of PLP. Less use was associated with reports that prosthesis use worsened RLP, and greater prosthesis use was associated with reports that prosthesis use did not affect PLP. Having a proximal amputation and reporting lower average PLP were related to greater use in hours per day for persons with an ULA, while having a distal amputation and being married were associated with greater use in days per month. Finally, participants with LLA were significantly more likely to wear a prosthesis than those with ULA. These results underscore the importance of examining factors related to prosthesis use and the differential effect that these variables may have when the etiology and location of amputation are considered.

References

27