Davids Jon R, Wagner Lisa V, Meyer Leslie C, Blackhurst Dawn W
Motion Analysis Laboratory, Shriners Hospital for Children, 950 West Faris Road, Greenville, SC 29601, USA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jun;88(6):1294-300. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00982.
There is substantial controversy concerning the prosthetic management of children with unilateral congenital below-elbow deficiency. The optimal age at the time of the initial fitting, the value of intensive prosthetic training, and the preferred prosthetic design for these children have not been established.
The outcomes of prosthetic management for 260 children with unilateral congenital below-elbow deficiency, treated between 1954 and 2004, were analyzed with respect to ongoing clinic attendance and self-reported prosthetic use. A successful prosthetic outcome was defined as a child and parents who continued to attend the limb-deficiency clinic and claimed at the time of the most recent follow-up that the prosthesis had been worn for any period of time. An unsuccessful prosthetic outcome was defined as a child and parents who were lost to follow-up or who claimed at the time of the most recent follow-up that the child never wore the prosthesis. Survival analysis was performed.
An unsuccessful prosthetic outcome was noted for 127 children (49%). Initial fitting prior to the age of three years was associated with improved prosthetic outcome (p < 0.001). With the numbers studied, there was no additional benefit noted for fitting before one year of age (p = 0.60). Improved prosthetic outcomes were noted in children who had received intensive training at the time of fitting with an active terminal device (p = 0.005). Provision of a variety of prosthetic designs over the growing years was also associated with improved prosthetic outcome (p < 0.001).
This study supports the initial prosthetic fitting for a child with unilateral congenital below-elbow deficiency prior to the age of three years, the provision of intensive training under the direction of an occupational therapist when an active terminal device is applied, and utilization of a variety of prosthetic designs over the child's years of growth. Further analysis of outcomes for the prosthetic management of these children will require more precise definitions of outcome in multiple domains and the development and validation of specific outcome instruments.
对于单侧先天性肘下缺失儿童的假肢治疗存在大量争议。初始装配的最佳年龄、强化假肢训练的价值以及这些儿童首选的假肢设计尚未确定。
分析了1954年至2004年间接受治疗的260名单侧先天性肘下缺失儿童的假肢治疗结果,包括持续的门诊就诊情况和自我报告的假肢使用情况。成功的假肢治疗结果定义为儿童及其父母继续前往肢体缺陷门诊就诊,且在最近一次随访时声称假肢已佩戴过一段时间。不成功的假肢治疗结果定义为儿童及其父母失访,或在最近一次随访时声称儿童从未佩戴过假肢。进行了生存分析。
127名儿童(49%)出现了不成功的假肢治疗结果。三岁前进行初始装配与更好的假肢治疗结果相关(p<0.001)。就研究的数量而言,一岁前装配未显示出额外益处(p = 0.60)。在装配主动终端装置时接受强化训练的儿童,假肢治疗结果更好(p = 0.005)。在儿童成长过程中提供多种假肢设计也与更好的假肢治疗结果相关(p<0.001)。
本研究支持对单侧先天性肘下缺失儿童在三岁前进行初始假肢装配,在应用主动终端装置时在职业治疗师指导下提供强化训练,以及在儿童成长过程中使用多种假肢设计。对这些儿童假肢治疗结果的进一步分析需要在多个领域更精确地定义结果,并开发和验证特定的结果评估工具。