Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Aug;101(8):1396-1406.
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.04.003. Epub 2020 May 11.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Linda Resnik et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Aug.

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: Amputation; Quality of life; Rehabilitation; Survey; Upper limb; Veterans.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources