X hits on this document

PDF document

Justin Z. Laferrier, MSPT, OCS, SCS, CSCS, ATP; - page 5 / 12

31 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

5 / 12

353

LAFERRIER et al. Mobility and AT in servicemembers with major traumatic limb loss

Table 1. Use of mobility assistive technology (AT) (prosthetic devices and wheelchairs) by number and percentage (%) in Vietnam and Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) groups with major traumatic lower-limb loss by involved limb.

Unilateral

Bilateral

Other Multiple-Limb

Lower-Limb Loss

Lower-Limb Loss

Loss Including 1 Lower Limb

Types of Mobility-Related AT Used

Total

150 (84.3) 19 (10.7) 9 (5.0) 178

64 (66.7) 32 (33.3) 4 (4.0) 100

35 (92.1) 3 (7.9) 3 (7.3) 41

249 (78.1) 54 (16.9) 16 (5.0) 319

15 (8.8) 2 (1.2) 30 (17.5) 124 (72.5) 171

30 (30.0) 4 (4.0) 46 (46.0) 20 (20.0) 100

3 (7.3) 3 (7.3) 23 (56.1) 12 (29.3) 41

48 (15.4) 9 (2.9) 99 (31.7) 156 (50.5) 312

162 (95.9) 7 (4.1) 3 (1.7) 172

78 (95.1) 4 (4.9) 2 (2.4) 84

28 (90.3) 3 (9.7) 0 31

268 (95.0) 14 (5.0) 5 (1.8) 287

Vietnam Prosthetic Devices Ever Received Lower-Limb Prosthetic Device Current Use Abandoned* Never Received Total Wheelchairs Wheelchair Use Only Abandoned Prostheses* No Prostheses Received Supplementary Wheelchair Use No Wheelchair Use Total OIF/OEF Prosthetic Devices Ever Received Lower-Limb Prosthetic Device Current Use Abandoned* Never Received Total Wheelchairs

Wheelchair Use Only

Abandoned Prostheses* No Prostheses Received Supplementary Wheelchair Use

No Wheelchair Use Total

  • *

    Abandoned excludes when a participant never received a prosthesis.

    • p < 0.05 compared with Vietnam group.

4 (2.3) 1 (0.6)

58 (34.1) 107 (62.9) 170

4 (4.8) 2 (2.3)

70 (83.3) 8 (9.5) 84

0 0

24 (77.4) 7 (22.6) 31

8 (2.8) 3 (1.0)

152 (53.3) 122 (42.8) 285

bilateral lower, and 0.6 ± 0.8 for multiple-limb loss). The OIF/OEF group abandoned fewer of the advanced devices (mean devices: 1.2 ± 0.5 for unilateral lower limbs, 1.5 ± 0.3 for bilateral lower limbs, and 0 for multi- ple-limb loss). The type of abandoned prosthetic device was not significantly different by conflict group, type, or level of limb loss (data not shown). The total number of prostheses ever received was significantly lower for those who abandoned all prostheses. Participants who abandoned all prostheses received an average total of four prostheses (both Vietnam and OIF/OEF partici- pants) compared with an average of 12.9 ± 10.5 devices

for Vietnam (p < 0.001) and 8.4 ± 6.4 devices for OIF/ OEF (p < 0.01) participants who continued to use pros- thetic devices.

In both conflict groups, of those abandoning prosthe- ses, most subsequently used wheelchairs exclusively. The level of limb loss is also important in predicting who may abandon prostheses (Table 2). Of those who currently used wheelchairs, most of those who abandoned prostheses had transfemoral limb loss. The highest frequency of abandonment occurred in those with bilateral transfemo- ral limb loss (93%, p = 0.008) in the Vietnam group. Abandonment in the OIF/OEF group was not significantly

Document info
Document views31
Page views31
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 04:42:44 UTC 2016
Pages12
Paragraphs500
Words8012

Comments