McFarland Lynne V, Hubbard Winkler Sandra L, Heinemann Allen W, Jones Melissa, Esquenazi Alberto
Department of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(4):299-316. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2009.03.0027.
Prosthetic use and satisfaction in wounded servicemembers and veterans with unilateral upper-limb loss has not been thoroughly explored. Through a national survey, we enrolled 47 participants from the Vietnam conflict and 50 from Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) with combat-associated major unilateral upper-limb loss. Upper-limb prosthetic devices were used by 70% of the Vietnam group and 76% of the OIF/OEF group. Mechanical/body-powered upper-limb devices were favored by the Vietnam group, while a combination of myoelectric/hybrid and mechanical/body-powered devices were favored by the OIF/OEF group. Upper-limb devices were completely abandoned in 30% of the Vietnam and 22% of the OIF/OEF groups. Abandonment was more frequent for transhumeral and more proximal levels (42% of Vietnam and 40% of OIF/OEF) than more distal limb-loss levels. Upper-limb prostheses were rejected because of dissatisfaction with the device by significantly fewer (23%) members of the Vietnam group than the OIF/OEF group (45%) (p < 0.001). Most common reasons for rejection included pain, poor comfort, and lack of functionality. A significant paradigm shift has been noted in the OIF/OEF group, who use a greater number and diversity of upper-limb prostheses than the Vietnam group.
在单侧上肢缺失的受伤军人和退伍军人中,假肢的使用情况及满意度尚未得到充分研究。通过一项全国性调查,我们招募了47名来自越南战争冲突时期的参与者以及50名来自伊拉克自由行动/持久自由行动(OIF/OEF)且因战斗导致单侧上肢严重缺失的参与者。越南组中有70%的人使用上肢假肢装置,OIF/OEF组中有76%的人使用。越南组更青睐机械/身体驱动的上肢装置,而OIF/OEF组则更倾向于肌电/混合式与机械/身体驱动装置的组合。越南组中有30%的人、OIF/OEF组中有22%的人完全放弃了上肢装置。与肢体远端缺失水平相比,经肱骨及更靠近近端水平的放弃情况更为常见(越南组为42%,OIF/OEF组为40%)。越南组中因对装置不满意而拒绝使用上肢假肢的成员(23%)明显少于OIF/OEF组(45%)(p<0.001)。拒绝使用的最常见原因包括疼痛、舒适度差和功能不足。已注意到OIF/OEF组出现了显著的模式转变,他们使用的上肢假肢数量更多、种类更丰富,超过了越南组。