Three hundred and fourteen adult upper limb amputees were reviewed retrospectively at the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the use of body and electrically powered prostheses. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 49 years with a mean of 15 years. Results indicated that complete or useful acceptance of an electrically powered prosthesis was reported by 69 of 83 amputees (83%); 199 of 291 amputees (68%) used the cable operated hook, 57 of 291 (20%) used the cable operated hand and 40 of 83 (48%) used the cosmetic prosthesis. The majority of amputees used more than one prosthesis for their functional needs and should be fitted with more than one type of prosthesis. Acceptance of an upper limb prosthesis by 89% (196/220) of below-elbow, 76% (56/74) of above-elbow and 60% (12/20) of high level amputees indicates that for most upper limb amputees, their prostheses are well used and essential to their personal and employment activities.

The value of fitting adult upper limb amputees with electrically powered prostheses is assessed. In a series of 164 amputees, complete or useful acceptance of an electrically powered prosthesis was recorded in 80% of below-elbow amputees, 69% of above-elbow amputees and 72% of high level amputees. Patients expressed satisfaction with the combination of comfort, cosmesis and function. Results indicate that, accepting the high cost, an electrically powered prosthesis can provide important function to the upper limb amputee.

The place of the myo-electric prosthesis in below-elbow amputees has been reviewed. Forty-three patients were seen and all possessed both a myo-electric prosthesis and a standard artificial limb. Nearly half the patients used the newer device almost all the time at work and many of these wore it for the majority of their waking hours. Its use at work was mainly related to the patient's type of job and here in turn there was concern about damaging the device. It is suggested that acceptance would be further increased if greater attention were paid to the durability of the arm and its glove. Criteria for prescription and future developments are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract