Advertisement

Function and Quality of Life of Unilateral Major Upper Limb Amputees: Effect of Prosthesis Use and Type

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare patient-reported outcomes of disability, activity difficulty, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by prosthetic device use and configuration and to identify factors associated with these outcomes.

      Design

      Telephone survey.

      Setting

      General community.

      Participants

      Population-based sample of veterans (N=755) with unilateral upper limb amputation recruited from a national sample of veterans with upper limb amputation who received care at the Veterans Affairs clinic from 2010-2015.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Upper limb–related disability was measured using Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (QuickDASH). HRQOL was measured using the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental and Physical Component scores. Activity difficulty was assessed for 1-handed and 2-handed tasks and by questions about the need for help with activities of daily living (ADLs).

      Results

      Patients who did not use a prosthesis had more difficulty performing 1-handed tasks using the residual limb as compared with those who used body-powered prostheses. Cosmetic device users had more task difficulty than body-powered or myoelectric users. Linear regression models did not show an association between type of prosthesis used and HRQOL scores, but did show that those who did not use a prosthesis (non-users) had worse QuickDASH scores (β=9.4; P=.0004) compared to body-powered users. In logistic regression modeling, the odds of needing help with ADLs were 1.84 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.92) for non-users compared with body-powered users.

      Conclusions

      Amputees who did not use a prosthesis or used a cosmetic prosthesis reported more difficulty in activities and greater disability as compared with those who use body-powered and myoelectric devices. Non-users were more likely to need help with ADLs as compared with those who used a body-powered prosthesis. Our findings highlight the clinical importance of encouraging prosthesis use. Further research is needed to compare physical performance by prosthesis configuration.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      ADL (activity of daily living), DOF (degrees of freedom), HRQOL (health-related quality of life), MCS (Mental Component Summary), PCS (Physical Component Summary), QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm), Shoulder (and Hand score), VA (Veterans Affairs), VR-12 (Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Carey S.L.
        • Stevens P.
        • Highsmith J.
        Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses systematic literature review update 2013–2016.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2017; 29: 17-20
        • Carey S.L.
        • Lura D.J.
        • Highsmith M.J.
        Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015; 52: 247-262
        • Atkins D.J.
        • Heard D.C.
        • Donovan W.H.
        Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 1996; 8: 2-11
        • Kyberd P.J.
        • Hill W.
        Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011; 35: 234-241
        • Luchetti M.
        • Cutti A.G.
        • Verni G.
        • Sacchetti R.
        • Rossi N.
        Impact of Michelangelo prosthetic hand: findings from a crossover longitudinal study.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015; 52: 605-618
        • Dalley S.A.
        • Bennett D.A.
        • Goldfarb M.
        Preliminary functional assessment of a multigrasp myoelectric prosthesis.
        Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012; 2012: 4172-4175
        • van der Niet O.
        • Bongers R.M.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        Functionality of i-LIMB and i-LIMB pulse hands: case report.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013; 50: 1123-1128
        • Bouwsema H.
        • Kyberd P.J.
        • Hill W.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        • Bongers R.M.
        Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 1331-1348
        • Kyberd P.J.
        The influence of control format and hand design in single axis myoelectric hands: assessment of functionality of prosthetic hands using the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011; 35: 285-293
        • Resnik L.
        • Ekerholm S.
        • Borgia M.
        • Clark M.A.
        A national study of veterans with major upper limb amputation: survey methods, participants, and summary findings.
        PLoS One. 2019; 14e0213578
        • Resnik L.
        • Borgia M.
        Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the QuickDASH in patients with upper limb amputation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 1676-1683
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Katz J.N.
        Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 1038-1046
        • Gummesson C.
        • Ward M.M.
        • Atroshi I.
        The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7: 44
        • Ware Jr., J.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Keller S.D.
        A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.
        Med Care. 1996; 34: 220-233
        • Ware Jr., J.E.
        SF-36 health survey update.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 3130-3139
        • Elliot A.C.
        • Reisch J.S.
        Implementing a multiple comparison test for proportions in a 2xc crosstabulation in SAS®.
        (Available at:) (Accessed February 21, 2020)
        • Biddiss E.A.
        • Chau T.T.
        Multivariate prediction of upper limb prosthesis acceptance or rejection.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008; 3: 181-192
        • Biddiss E.
        • Chau T.
        Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 86: 977-987
        • Elnitsky C.A.
        • Latlief G.A.
        • Andrews E.E.
        • Adams-Koss L.B.
        • Phillips S.L.
        Preferences for rehabilitation services among women with major limb amputations.
        Rehabil Nurs. 2013; 38: 32-36
        • Flannery J.C.
        • Faria S.H.
        Limb loss: alterations in body image.
        J Vasc Nurs. 1999; 17: 100-106
        • Ritchie S.
        • Wiggins S.
        • Sanford A.
        Perceptions of cosmesis and function in adults with upper limb prostheses: a systematic literature review.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011; 35: 332-341
        • Spiers A.J.
        • Resnik L.
        • Dollar A.M.
        Analyzing at-home prosthesis use in unilateral upper-limb amputees to inform treatment & device design.
        IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2017; 2017: 1273-1280
        • Resnik L.
        • Klinger S.
        • Gill A.
        • Ekerholm Biester S.
        Feminine identity and functional benefits are key factors in women's decision making about upper limb prostheses: a case series.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019; 14: 194-208
        • Resnik L.
        • Acluche F.
        • Lieberman Klinger S.
        • Borgia M.
        Does the DEKA Arm substitute for or supplement conventional prostheses.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42: 534-543
        • Management of Upper Extremity Amputation Rehabilitation Working Group
        VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for the management of upper extremity amputation rehabilitation.
        Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington (DC)2014
        • Smurr L.M.
        • Gulick K.
        • Yancosek K.
        • Ganz O.
        Managing the upper extremity amputee: a protocol for success.
        J Hand Ther. 2008; 21: 160-175
        • Johnson S.S.
        • Mansfield E.
        Prosthetic training: upper limb.
        Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014; 25: 133-151
        • Atkins D.
        Prosthetic training.
        in: Smith D.G. Michael J.W. Bowker J.H. Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Rosemont2004: 27-284
        • Ellis C.
        • Hyacinth H.I.
        • Beckett J.
        • et al.
        Racial/ethnic differences in poststroke rehabilitation outcomes.
        Stroke Res Treat. 2014; 2014: 950746
        • Murtaugh C.M.
        • Beissner K.L.
        • Barron Y.
        • et al.
        Pain and function in home care: a need for treatment tailoring to reduce disparities?.
        Clin J Pain. 2017; 33: 300-309