Developing core sets for persons following amputation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a way to specify functioning

Amputation is a common late stage sequel of peripheral vascular disease and diabetes or a sequel of accidental trauma, civil unrest and landmines. The functional impairments affect many facets of life including but not limited to: Mobility; activities of daily living; body image and sexuality. Classification, measurement and comparison of the consequences of amputations has been impeded by the limited availability of internationally, multiculturally standardized instruments in the amputee setting. The introduction of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by the World Health Assembly in May 2001 provides a globally accepted framework and classification system to describe, assess and compare function and disability. In order to facilitate the use of the ICF in everyday clinical practice and research, ICF core sets have been developed that focus on specific aspects of function typically associated with a particular disability. The objective of this paper is to outline the development process for the ICF core sets for persons following amputation. The ICF core sets are designed to translate the benefits of the ICF into clinical routine. The ICF core sets will be defined at a Consensus conference which will integrate evidence from preparatory studies, namely: (a) a systematic literature review regarding the outcome measures of clinical trails and observational studies, (b) semi-structured patient interviews, (c) international experts participating in an internet-based survey, and (d) cross-sectional, multi-center studies for clinical applicability. To validate the ICF core sets field-testing will follow. Invitation for participation: The development of ICF Core Sets is an inclusive and open process. Anyone who wishes to actively participate in this process is invited to do so

Opinions of Youngsters with Congenital Below-Elbow Deficiency, and Those of Their Parents and Professionals Concerning Prosthetic Use and Rehabilitation Treatment

<p>Background: Youngsters with unilateral congenital below-elbow deficiency (UCBED) seem to function well with or without a prosthesis. Reasons for rejecting prostheses have been reported earlier, but unfortunately not those of the children themselves. Furthermore, reasons for acceptance are underexplored in the literature.</p><p>Objectives: To investigate opinions of children and early and late adolescents with UCBED, and those of their parents and healthcare professionals, concerning (1) reasons to wear or not to wear prostheses and (2) about rehabilitation care.</p><p>Methods: During one week of online focus group interviews, 42 children of 8-12 y/o, early and late adolescents of 13-16 and 17-20 y/o, 17 parents, and 19 healthcare professionals provided their opinions on various topics. This study addresses prosthetic use or non-use of prosthetics and rehabilitation care. Data were analyzed using the framework approach.</p><p>Results: Cosmesis was considered to be the prime factor for choosing and wearing a prosthesis, since this was deemed especially useful in avoiding stares from others. Although participants functioned well without prostheses, they agreed that it was an adjuvant in daily-life activities and sports. Weight and limited functionality constituted rejection reasons for a prosthesis. Children and adolescents who had accepted that they were different no longer needed the prosthesis to avoid being stared at. The majority of participants highly valued the peer-to-peer contact provided by the healthcare professionals.</p><p>Conclusions: For children and adolescents with UCBED, prostheses appeared particularly important for social integration, but much less so for functionality. Peer-to-peer contact seemed to provide support during the process of achieving social integration and should be embedded in the healthcare process.</p>

Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic arm research predominantly focuses on "bionic" but not body-powered arms. However, any research orientation along user needs requires sufficiently precise workplace specifications and sufficiently hard testing. Forensic medicine is a demanding environment, also physically, also for non-disabled people, on several dimensions (e.g., distances, weights, size, temperature, time). METHODS: As unilateral below elbow amputee user, the first author is in a unique position to provide direct comparison of a "bionic" myoelectric iLimb Revolution (Touch Bionics) and a customized body-powered arm which contains a number of new developments initiated or developed by the user: (1) quick lock steel wrist unit; (2) cable mount modification; (3) cast shape modeled shoulder anchor; (4) suspension with a soft double layer liner (Ohio Willowwood) and tube gauze (Molnlycke) combination. The iLimb is mounted on an epoxy socket; a lanyard fixed liner (Ohio Willowwood) contains magnetic electrodes (Liberating Technologies). An on the job usage of five years was supplemented with dedicated and focused intensive two-week use tests at work for both systems. RESULTS: The side-by-side comparison showed that the customized body-powered arm provides reliable, comfortable, effective, powerful as well as subtle service with minimal maintenance; most notably, grip reliability, grip force regulation, grip performance, center of balance, component wear down, sweat/temperature independence and skin state are good whereas the iLimb system exhibited a number of relevant serious constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Research and development of functional prostheses may want to focus on body-powered technology as it already performs on manually demanding and heavy jobs whereas eliminating myoelectric technology's constraints seems out of reach. Relevant testing could be developed to help expediting this. This is relevant as Swiss disability insurance specifically supports prostheses that enable actual work integration. Myoelectric and cosmetic arm improvement may benefit from a less forgiving focus on perfecting anthropomorphic appearance