Objective: To investigate the functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency – acquired and congenital (elbow disarticulation, transhumeral, shoulder disarticulation and forequarter level).
Design: Cohort observational study.
Subjects: All proximal upper limb amputees and patients with congenital upper limb absence currently registered with the Sheffeld Mobility and Specialised Rehabilitation Centre.
Methods: A self-administered postal questionnaire and medical records were used to collect data. The questionnaire obtained information about demographic details, dominancy of the amputated arm and independence and participation in activities of daily living (ADL), domestic and recreational activities. The prevalence of pain in the phantom limb and stump, and information regarding the remaining arm was also obtained. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to evaluate the psychological state of the subjects.
Results: Trauma was the commonest cause of proximal upper limb loss (71.25%). Transhumeral amputation was the predominant level (78.75%). Although 73.2% returned to work following amputation, 66.6% had to change job. Overall rejection rate of prosthesis was 33.75%. Twenty-five per cent of patients found the prosthesis beneficial for driving and a small proportion used the prosthesis for employment and recreational activities, but the vast majority used the prosthesis primarily for cosmesis. Pain in the phantom limb was reported in 60% of our patients but there was no significant correlation between this and depression. Symptoms of overuse injury in the nonamputated limb were higher than expected in the normal population.
Conclusion: As many as 33.75% of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency rejected their prostheses and many who continue to wear them do not find them useful in ADL and employment, etc. It is vital that rehabilitation programmes should focus on both prosthetic and nonprosthetic training to achieve maximal independence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Amputee Statistical Database for the United Kingdom 1999/00. Edinburgh: ISD Publications, 2002.
2.
Datta D, Ibbotson V. Prosthetic rehabilitation of upper limb amputees: a five year review. Clin Rehabil1991; 5: 311–316.
3.
Day HJB. Upper limb prosthetics. Curr Orthop1990;4: 59–63.
4.
Jones LE, Davidson JH. Save that arm: a study of problems in the remaining arm of unilateral upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int1999; 23: 55–58.
5.
Roeschlein RA, Domholdt E. Factors related to successful upper extremity prosthetic use. Prosthet Orthot Int1989; 13: 14–18.
6.
Jones LE. Prosthetic limb use in Australia 1981–85. Prosthet Orthot Int1989; 13: 76–81.
7.
Burger H, Marincek C. Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia. Prosthet Orthot Int1994; 18: 25–33.
8.
Kejlaa GH. Consumer concerns and the functional value of prostheses to upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int1993; 17: 157–163.
9.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand1983; 67: 361–370.
10.
Milstein S, Bain D, Hunter GA. A review of employment patterns of industrial amputees–factors influencing rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int1985;2: 69–78.
11.
Carter I, Torrance WN, Merry PH. Functional results following amputation of the upper limb. Ann Phys Med1969: 10: 137–141.
12.
Jones LE, Davidson JH. The long-term outcome of upper limb amputees treated at a rehabilitation centre in Sydney, Australia. Disabil Rehabil1995; 17: 437–442.
13.
Durance JP, O'Shea BJ. Upper limb amputees: a clinic profile. Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 68–72.
14.
Wright TW, Hagen AD, Wood MB. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg1995; 20: 619–622.
15.
Milstein SG, Heger H, Hunter GA. Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: a comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int1986; 10: 27–34.
16.
Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther2002; 15: 62–70.
17.
Sturup J, Thyregod HC, Jenson JS et al. Traumatic amputation of the upper limb: the use of body-powered prostheses and employment consequences. Prosthet Orthot Int1988; 12: 50–52.
18.
Pinzur MS, Angelats J, Light TR, Izuierdo R, Pluth T. Functional outcome following traumatic upper limb amputation and prosthetic limb fitting. J Hand Surg1994; 19: 836–839.
19.
Kooijman CM, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, Elzinga A, van der Schans CP. Phantom pain and phantom sensations in upper limb amputees: an epidemiological study. Pain2000; 87: 33–41.
20.
Warton SW, Hamann W, Wedley JR, McColl I. Phantom pain and sensation among British veteran amputees. Br J Anaesth1997; 78: 652–659.
21.
Ehele DM, Czerniecki JM, Smith DG et al. Chronic phantom sensations, phantom pain, residual limb pain, and other regional pain after lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2000; 81: 1039–1044.
22.
Houghton AD, Nicholls G, Houghton AL, Saadah E, McColl L. Phantom pain: natural history and association with rehabilitation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl1994; 76: 22–25.
23.
Shukla GD, Sahu SC, Tripathi RP, Gupta DK. A psychiatric study of amputees. Br J Psychiatry1982; 141: 50–53.
24.
Kashani JH, Frank RG, Kashani SR, Wonderlich SA, Reid JC. Depression among amputees. J Clin Psychiatry1983; 44: 256–258.
25.
Fisher K, Hanspal RS. Phantom pain, anxiety, depression, and their relation in consecutive patients with amputated limbs: case reports. BMJ1998; 316: 903–904.
