Adaptive upper extremity prostheses for recreation and play

Kanas, JoAnne L.; Holowka, Mark

doi:10.3233/prm-2009-0082

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These observations question prosthetic functionality and necessity: “Are prostheses the best solution for children’s and adolescent’s needs?” Our study also highlighted the perceived value children and adolescents expressed regarding the use of adaptive devices. These devices are light-weight, designed for specific activities, easy to manipulate and to put on [50]. Therefore, considering adaptive devices as an option for rehabilitating children and adolescents with UCBED may be of great value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundYoungsters 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.ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsDuring 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.ResultsCosmesis 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.ConclusionsFor 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the heterogeneity in terminology, data-collection methods, and outcomes in studies about assistive devices in young people with impairments (16) hampers comparison with our results. The studies about ADs were mostly descriptions of devices or rehabilitation with devices (4,13,25,26). Data on actual use and satisfaction with ADs in children with ULRD were lacking.…”

Section: Difficulties In Activities Of Daily Living and Use Of Adaptimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Young people with an upper limb reduction deficiency (ULRD) are generally able to perform activities of daily living (ADL) (1-3) by finding solutions to facilitate difficulties in activities and participation (2). However, some ADL pose more functional limitations; for example, lifting heavy objects, engaging in sports, cycling or driving (3,4). Although prostheses are usually prescribed for activity limitations (5)(6)(7), they are rejected by 35-45% of young people with ULRD (8) due to the weight, lack of functional gain and loss of or reduced sensory feedback, or discomfort of the prostheses (3,(9)(10)(11)(12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%