Prosthetics and orthotics international · 2021
Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: Comparison of socket prostheses and osseointegrated prostheses.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Pospiech Philip Thomas, Wendlandt Robert, Aschoff Horst-Heinrich, Ziegert Sibylle, Schulz Arndt Peter
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Until recently, no study had compared the quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation treated with osseointegration to socket prosthesis users.
OBJECTIVES: Comparison of quality of life in two types of prostheses users: a cohort of patients with osseointegration and patients equipped with a socket prosthesis who were group-matched for age, body mass index and mobility grade.
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study that compared METHODS:: The quality of life of 39 participants (22 in the osseointegration group and 17 in the socket prosthesis group) was measured using the Questionnaire for Persons with Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and European Questionnaire 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) surveys.
RESULTS: Compared with the socket prosthesis group, the osseointegration group had a significantly higher 'Global' score (p = 0.022) and a significantly lower 'Problem' score (p < 0.001) of the Q-TFA. The 'Mobility' (p = 0.051) and 'Use' scores (p = 0.146) of the Q-TFA, the EQ-5D-3L index (p = 0.723), and EQ-5D visual analog scale (p = 0.497) showed no significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with osseointegration experienced less prosthesis-associated problems than socket prosthesis users and had a higher prosthesis-associated quality of life when assessed with the Q-TFA. General quality of life, as assessed with the EQ-5D-3L, was not different between groups.
OBJECTIVES: Comparison of quality of life in two types of prostheses users: a cohort of patients with osseointegration and patients equipped with a socket prosthesis who were group-matched for age, body mass index and mobility grade.
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study that compared METHODS:: The quality of life of 39 participants (22 in the osseointegration group and 17 in the socket prosthesis group) was measured using the Questionnaire for Persons with Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and European Questionnaire 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) surveys.
RESULTS: Compared with the socket prosthesis group, the osseointegration group had a significantly higher 'Global' score (p = 0.022) and a significantly lower 'Problem' score (p < 0.001) of the Q-TFA. The 'Mobility' (p = 0.051) and 'Use' scores (p = 0.146) of the Q-TFA, the EQ-5D-3L index (p = 0.723), and EQ-5D visual analog scale (p = 0.497) showed no significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with osseointegration experienced less prosthesis-associated problems than socket prosthesis users and had a higher prosthesis-associated quality of life when assessed with the Q-TFA. General quality of life, as assessed with the EQ-5D-3L, was not different between groups.