Results of the Questionnaire on Upper Extremity Prostheses
There were 10 responses (one of which was considered so confusing as to be useless). Eight of the nine respondents, whose results were considered, stated that they fit less than 15 new upper limb prostheses, and six fit less than 10. One respondent stated that his facility had fit 55 new upper limb prostheses last year (this represented about 25 percent of all new prostheses delivered in that period).
Seven respondents replied that upper extremity amputees represented less than 20 percent of their patient population and two stated that they amounted to 20-40 percent.
In response to question 3, the average number of externally powered prostheses fit among the respondents was 3.2. The most common response (five) was zero. One individual reported fitting 18 (the same individual above who reported fitting a total of 55 upper extremity prostheses, 33 percent).
The responses to question 4, concerning which upper extremity prosthesis they considered most beneficial to a patient, were fairly equivocal. There were 2 1/2 votes for body powered prostheses, 3 1/2 in favor of externally powered prostheses, and two for hybrid prostheses.
Concerning the remarks by John Billock, C.P.O., in his article, "Upper Limb Prosthetic Management—Hybrid Design Approaches," whether they considered a hook or hand most appropriate, the respondents gave 5 1/2 votes to externally powered hands, 2 1/2 to hooks, and none to body powered hands.
In response to what their patients preferred, three respondents stated that their patients preferred hooks, another individual stated that half his patients preferred hooks, three others said that their patients were in favor of externally powered hands, and one said that his patients preferred body powered hands.
Eight of the respondents said that the results of LeBlanc's survey concurred with their experience and one said fifty-fifty.
In considering question 8 concerning preference for R&D, the number of number one and number two responses were totalled. The results were as follows:
Improved External Powered Prostheses, including provisions for hybrid design—8
Cosmetic Gloves and Skins—5
Sensory Feedback—3
Improved Body Powered Prostheses—2
Hooks—1
Hands—1
|
Academy Website
