Investigating the status of using lower extremity orthoses recommended to patients with spinal cord injury.
Аннотация
STUDY
DESIGN
Retrospective descriptive study.
OBJECTIVES
The present study aimed to investigate the rate of using orthosis among spinal cord injury (SCI) patients for whom orthosis was recommended for standing and walking, the relationship between the clinical and demographic characteristics of SCI and the use of orthosis and the reasons for not using orthosis.
SETTING
Ankara Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Training and Research Hospital, Turkey.
METHODS
The study included 62 SCI patients for whom orthosis was recommended for standing and ambulation. The patients were classified into two groups as individuals using and not using the recommended orthosis every day in order to evaluate the effect of age, gender, residence, duration of disease/recommended duration of orthosis, recommended orthosis, lesion level-degree, lower extremity tonus-range of motion and ambulation level on the frequency of orthosis use.
RESULTS
The orthosis most commonly recommended was hip-knee-ankle-foot orthosis with waist or pelvic belt (45.2%). Of the patients, 25.8% have never used the orthosis. The most common reason for not using the recommended orthosis was the failure to facilitate the daily life activities of the patient (30%), the difficulties in putting them on and taking them off (20%), the belief that it is unnecessary (15%) and the pressure (15%). In addition, the assessed clinical and demographic features were detected as not important risk factors for not using orthosis.
CONCLUSION
At least one out of four patients with SCI do not use the recommended lower extremity orthosis. Selecting eligible patients, patient training and follow-up are important for increased frequency of orthosis usage.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.