Erratum

Jensen JS, Nilsen R, Zeffer J. 2005. Quality benchmark for trans-tibial prostheses in low-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int 29(1): 53 – 58.

Due to a production error,Tables I and II in the above article were not reproduced to the Journal's usual standard, and consequently were difficult to read. We therefore reproduce the tables on the following pages.

Table I.

Trans-tibial amputees with polypropylene prostheses.

Harold Wood Stanmore assessment system:

Dis-Mob disability-mobility score

Hcp-Mob handicap-mobility score

Hcp-Indep handicap-independence score

Table II.

Trans-tibial amputation stumps and fitting.

													Historical Data
	VI-Solid Foot	EB-1 Foot	CR-SACH Foot	VI Multiaxis Foot	Total	PP, Vietnam	ATLAS	HDPE-Jaipur
Number	31		36		38		36		141		32		81		172
Patient compliance
Users of investigated prosth.	26	84%	31	86%	38	100%	36	100%	131	93%	30	94%	66	81%	162	94%
Wear, hrs/day	14	7–14	12	3–14	14	10–16	14	9–16	14	3–16	15	10–16	15	8–18	12	2–24
Walks >1 km	25	81%	29	81%	36	95%	35	97%	125	89%	25	78%	51	63%	82	48%
Walks <1 km	1		2		2		1		6		5		15		80
Intensive users	21		24		37		33		115	82%	24	75%	59	73%	62	36%
Moderate/light users	5		7		1		3		16		6		7		90
Non-users	5		5		0		0		10	7%	2	6%	15	19%	10	6%
Bare-foot walking					6	16%	13	36%	19
Environment
Urban	16		11		9		8		44	31%			43	53%	42
Dry rural	14		25		9		18		66	47%	25	78%	28	35%	121	70%
Wet	1						6		7		7		3		9
Sea-water					20		4		24
Complaints	7	23%	12	33%		0%	5	14%	24	17%
No comfort	6		8				5	unstable	19	13%			13	16%	62	36%
– wear	2		7						9						40
– walk	6		8						14						61
Pain	5		9			0%		0%	14	10%			24	30%	84	49%
– stump	1		4						5		2		10		34
– rest									0				4		13
– exercise	4		5						9				10		37
– other									0
Hot	7		4						11	8%	4
Satisfied	25	81%	30	83%	38	100%	34	94%	127	90%	26	81%	52	64%	135	78%
Unsatisfied	5	16%	6	17%			2		13		4		12		27
No opinion expressed									0				2
Body-build
– average	14		23		21		19		77	55%	11	34%	37	46%	78	45%
– light	14		7		13		15		49		21		21		32
– heavy	3		1		4		2		10				9		12
Worker type	16		23		25		20		84	60%
White collar type	15		7		13		16		51
Stump length
– Short	11		9		9		9		38	27%	9	28%	23	28%	72	42%
– Medium	11		13		21		17		62		14		31		74
– Long	9		9		8		10		36		11		16		25
– No record			5						5
Stump condition
– Scars	5		1		3		3		12	9%	12	38%	20	25%	37	22%
– Ulcers	2		1		2				5				7		13
– Neuroma					1		1		2						9
Bone protrusions	5		2				4		11	8%	10	31%	10	12%	62	36%
Skin disorders											19
– Pressure induced	4		7						11	8%	17	53%	12	15%	76	44%
– Cysts, lichnified	7				2		3		12	9%	4	13%		0%	1	1%
– Sweat, dermatitis			9						9		1		4		22
– Verrucous hyperplasia	3				1				4		3		7		2
Good fit	19	61%	14	39%	24	63%	17	47%	74	52%	17	53%	35	43%	34	20%
Wide fit	9		13		14		18		54	38%	15	47%	25	31%	111	65%
Tight fit	1		5				1		7		2		13		9
No record	2		4						6
Socket wall inadequate	3		1				1		5	4%			1		47	27%
Malalignment	6	19%	10	28%	9	24%	5	14%	30	21%	8	25%	28	35%	89	52%
– Foot	6		10		5		3		24		6		22		39
– Prosthesis			1		7		3		11		2		6		83
Length unequal >1cm							1		1						42	24%
Insufficient craftsmanship	4	13%	6	17%	7	18%	6	17%	23	16%			14	17%	97	56%
Failure
Suspension	1				16		8		25	18%	5	16%	4	5%	66	38%
Soft liner	6								6		6				33
Distal padding	7		3				1		11	8%			7
New socket	6	19%	7	19%	4	11%	5	14%	22	16%	3	9%	13	16%	44	26%
New prosthesis	4	13%	3	8%	1	3%			8	6%			1	1%	9	5%
New foot	1		8		10		26		45		15		2		21