THE EFFECTS OF EXERCISE PROGRAM ON SATISFACTION LEVEL IN UNILATERAL ABOVE KNEE AMPUTEES

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effects of exercise program performed under the supervision of a physiotherapist, on prosthetic satisfaction level in unilateral above knee amputees.

Methods: 19 unilateral above knee amputees, with the mean age of 39.3±12.8 years were enrolled in this study. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and properties of the prostheses of the participants were recorded. All cases attended to a 10 session exercise program. They continued the exercises after the program finished. The satisfaction level of the patients concerning comfort, appearance weight of the prosthesis and walking with prosthesis were assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) before and 2 months after the treatment.

Results: When compared pre and post-treatment results, comfort of the prosthesis (p=0.048), satisfaction with the appearence of prosthesis (p=0.01), and walking ability (p=0.033) were statistically different.

Discussion: In the present study, it is demonstrated that the exercise program affected prosthetic satisfaction levels positively in unilateral above knee amputees. 

Keywords

• Amputee,patient satisfaction,rehabilitation,exercise,physiotherapy

Tek Taraflı Diz Üstü Amputelerde Uygulanan Egzersiz Programının Protezle İlgili Memnuniyet Düzeyine Etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Fizyoterapist gözlemi altında yaptırılan egzersiz programının tek taraflı diz üstü amputelerde protezle ilgili memnuniyet düzeyi üzerine etkisinin araştırılmasıydı.

Yöntemler: Çalışmaya yaş ortalamaları 39.3±12.8 yıl olan 19 unilateral diz üstü ampute katıldı. Olguların sosyodemografik, klinik ve proteze ait özellikleri kaydedildi. Olgular 10 seans boyunca egzersiz programına katıldı. Olgular, program bittikten sonra da egzersizlere devam ettiler. Protezin rahatlığı, görünüşü, ağırlığı ve protezle yürümeye ilişkin hastaların memnuniyet düzeyi tedavi öncesi ve tedaviden 2 ay sonra olmak üzere Vizüel Analog Skalası (VAS) ile değerlendirildi.

Sonuçlar: Tedavi öncesi ve sonrası değerlendirmeler karşılaştırıldığında protezin rahatlığı (p=0.048), görünüşü (p=0.010) ve protezle yürüme (p=0.033) ile ilgili hastaların memnuniyet düzeyleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu.

Tartışma: Çalışmamızda, tek taraflı diz üstü amputelere uygulanan egzersiz programı, amputelerin protezle ilgili memnuniyet düzeylerini olumlu yönde etkilemiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ampute,hasta memnuniyeti,rehabilitasyon,egzersiz,fizyoterapi

References

1. 1. Kark L, Simmons A. Patient satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: the role of gait deviation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011 35:225-33.
2. 2. Carr-Hill RA. The measurement of patient satisfaction. J Public Health (Oxf). 1992;14(3):236–49.
3. 3. Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann. 1983; 6(3-4):185– 210.
4. 4. Krowinski WJ, Steiber SR. Measuring and managing patient satisfaction. 2nd ed. Chicago, Illinois: American Hospital Associati- on, American Hospital Publishing, Inc; 1997.
5. 5. Cairns N, Murray K, Corney J, McFadyen A. Satisfaction with cosmesis and priorities for cosmesis design reported by lower limb amputees in the United Kingdom: Instrument development and results. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013. Available from: 10.117770309364613512149
6. 6. Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:236-57.
7. 7. Yazicioglu K, Yavuz F, Göktepe AS, Tan AK. Influence of adapted sports on quality of life and life satisfaction is sport participants and non-sport participants with physical disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2012;5:249-53.
8. 8. Bilodeau S, Hebert R and Desrosiers J. Questionnaire on the satisfaction of persons with lower-limb amputations towards their prosthesis: development and validation. Can J Occup Ther. 1999;66(1):23.

9. 9. Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, Del Aguila M, Larsen J and Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79(8):931–8.
10. 10. Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. The Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis: Experience Scales and quality of life in people with lower- limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):730.
11. 11. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ and Burgess AR. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: a longterm outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80(8):563.
12. 12. Dudkıewıcz I, Pısarenko B, Herman A, Heim M. Satisfaction ra- tes amongst elderly amputees provided with a static prosthetic foot. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(21–22): 1963–7.
13. 13. Murray CD, Fox J. Body image and prosthesis satisfaction in the lower-limb amputee. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(17):925-31.
14. 14. Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim P and Rossbach P. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):723–9.
15. 15. De Fretes A, Boonstra AM, Vos LDW. Functional outcome of re- habilitated bilateral lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18:18-24.
16. 16. Ülger Ö, Topuz S, Bayramlar K. Effects of a hydraulic knee joint on energy consumption, gait and patient satisfaction in trans-femoral amputees. Fizyoter Rehabil. 2009;20(3):169-77.
17. 17. Zidarov D, Swaine B, Gauthier-Gagnon C. Quality of life persons with lower-limb amputation during rehabilitation and at 3 month follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:634-45.
18. 18. Tatar Y. Body image and its relationship with exercise and sports in Turkish lower-limb amputees who use prosthesis. Sci Sports. 2010;25:312-7.
19. 19. Breakey JW. The inner mirror. J Prosthet Orthot. 1997;9(3):107-12
20. 20. Cash TF, Jakatdar TA, Williams EF. The Body Image Quality of Life Inventory: further validation with college men and women. Body Image. 2004;1(3):279-87.
21. 21. Rybarczyk B, Nyenhuis DL, Nicholas JJ, Schulz R, Alioto RJ, Blair C. Social discomfort and depression in a sample of adults with leg amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73(12):1169-73.
22. 22. Stensman R. Body image among 22 persons with acquired and congenital severe mobility impairment. Paraplegia. 1989;27(1):27-35.
23. 23. Waites B, Zigmond A. Psychological impact of Amputation. In: Engstrom B, Van de Ven C, editors. Therapy for Amputees. 3rd ed. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone; 1999. p. 27-39.
24. 24. Fisher K, Hanspal R. Body image and patients with amputations: does the prosthesis maintain the balance? Int J Rehabil Res. 1998;21(4):355-63.
25. 25. Hopper C. Socialization of wheelchair athletes. In: Sherrill C, editor. Sport and Disabled Athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1986. p. 197-202.
26. 26. Levy AM. The disabled athlete: an approach. New Jersey Med. 1991;88(9):647-8.
27. 27. Varni JW, Setoguchi Y. Self-perceived physical appearance in children and adolescents with congenital/acquired limb defi- ciencies. J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin. 1991;26(2):56.
28. 28. Van Der Linde H, Hofstad CJ,Geertzen JHB, Postema K, Van Limbeer J. From staisfaction to expectation: The patient’s perspective in lower limb prosthetic care. Disabil Rehabil. 2007; 29(13):1049-55.