There is currenty a distinction drawn between a prosthesis considered to be provided for purely cosmetic reasons and a functional prosthesis provided to enable the amputee to achieve basic hand function. Using video analysis the study reported in this paper demonstrates that for non-manipulative actions cosmetic prostheses are actively used in the performance of everyday tasks as frequently evidence for a cosmetic prosthesis to be presented to an amputee as a realistic initial prosthesis and not as the option of last resort if a functional prosthesis is rejected. It is also recommended that training is provided in the use of cosmetic prostheses in two-handed tasks.
References
1.
BurgerHMarinĉarekC. Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia. Prosthet Orthot Int1994; 18: 25–23
2.
ClappS. Paper in progress. MRC, APU, Cambridge1998, Chaucer Road
3.
DattaDKingstonJRonaldJ. Myoelectric prostheses for below-elbow amputees: the Trent experience. Int Disabil Stud1989; 11: 167–170
4.
FraserC. Laterlity, gender and age differences in estimated frequency and actual registration of people with congenital upper limb absences. Prosthet Orthot Int1998; 22: 224–229
5.
GaineW JSmartCBransby-ZacharyM. Upper limb traumatic amputees: review of prosthetic use. J Bone Joint Surg1997; 22B: 73–76
6.
HegerHMillsteinSHunterGA. Electrically powered prostheses for adult with an upper limb amputation. J Bone Joint Surg1985; 67B: 278–281
7.
LakeC. Effects of prosthetic training on upper-extremity prosthesis use. J Prosthet Orthot1997; 9: 3–9
8.
MansteadA SRSeminGR. Methodology in social psychology: putting ideas to the test. Introduction to social psychology, HewstoneMStroebeWStephensonGM.. Blackwell, London1996; 76–106
9.
MillsteinG SHegerHHunterGA. Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: a comparison of body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int1986; 10: 27–34
10.
MuilenburgA LLeBlancMA. Body-powered upper-limb components. Comprehensive management of the upper-limb amputee, AtkinsDJMeierRH.. Springer-Verlag., New York1989; 28–59
11.
Northmore-BallM DHegerHHunterGA. The below-elbow myo-electric prosthesis a comparison of Otto Bock myo-electric prosthesis with the hook and functional hand. J Bone Joint Surg1980; 62B: 363–367
12.
OppenheimAN. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. Heinemann Educational Books, London1983
13.
RoeschleinR ADomholdtE. Factors related to successful upper extremity prosthetic use. Prosthet Orthot Int1989; 13: 14–18
14.
SilcoxD HRooksM DVogelR RFlemingLL. Myoelectric prostheses: a long-term follow-up and a study of the use of alternate prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg1993; 75A: 1781–1789
15.
SteinR BWalleyM. Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1983; 64: 243–248
16.
Van LunterenAVan Lunteren-GerritsenG HMStassenH GZutthoffMJ. A field evaluation of arm prostheses for unilateral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int1983; 7: 141–151
17.
WrightT WHagenA DWoodMB. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg1995; 20A: 619–622
