BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Effect of appearence of plastic ankle foot orthoses on patient satisfaction and orthotic compliance in children

Yıl 2007, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3, 195 - 200, 01.12.2007

Suat Erel İ. Engin Şimşek Nilgün Bek Banu Bayar Altan Alan Yavuz Yakut Fatma Uygur

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

  • Molner Git-Z. Orthotic management of children. ln: Redford JB. ed. Orthotics. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1995ıl37—165.
  • Stenger M. [Joe of orthoses in pediatrics. In: Deborah AN, ed. Orthotics in Functional Rehabilitation of The Lower Limh. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; |99?:245-2'72. Morris C. A review of the efficacy ol' lower-limb orthoses used for cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. ;44:205-21 ] . Polliaek AA. lilliot S, Landsbcrgcr SE. ct at. Lower extremity orthoses for children with myelomeningocele: user and orthotist perspectives. JPO. 2001 ; l 3: I 23— I 33.
  • Naslund A, Tamm M, Ericsson AK, et al. Dynamic ankle-foot orthoscs as a part of treatment in children with spastic diplegia: parents“ perceptions. Physiother Res Int. ;8:59-68. Garralda ME, Muntoni F, Cunnif A, ct al. Knee-ankle- foot orthosis in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: user views and adjustment. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2006;10: I86—l9l.
  • Pcclharnbaran A. The Relationship between performance. satisfaction, and well being for patients using anterior and posterior design knee-ankIe-foot orthosis. JPO. 2000;12: 33-40.
  • Heinemann AW, Bode RK. O*Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instnlmenls. Prosthet Orthot Int. ;27: [9 —206. Bernhardt KA, Irby SE. Kaufman KR. Consumer opinions oF a stance control knee orlltosis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30:246-256. ammo; Rehabilitasyon 18(3) 2007
  • Tyson SF. Thornton HA. The effect of a hinged ankle foot orthosis on hemiplegic gait: objective measures and users‘ opinions. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:53-58.
  • )emcrs L, Monette M. Lapierre Y. et al. Reliability, validity. and applicability ol'thc Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. ;24:21—30. Wessels RD, De Wine Ll’. Reliability and vality ofthe Dutch version onUEST 2.0 with users ol' various types Haehisuka K, Makine K. Wade F. Clinical application ol" carbon Şbre reinforced plastic leg orthosis for polio survivors and its advantages and disadvantages. Prosthct Orthot Int. 2006;30:129-l35.
  • Stevens PM. Lower limb orthotic management of duchertne muscular dystropy: a literature review. “’0. ; 8:lll-119.

Çocuk hastalarda plastik ayak-ayak bileği ortez görünümünün memnuniyet ve ortezi kabullenme üzerine etkisi

Yıl 2007, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3, 195 - 200, 01.12.2007

Suat Erel İ. Engin Şimşek Nilgün Bek Banu Bayar Altan Alan Yavuz Yakut Fatma Uygur

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ayak bileği Ayak Ortez Hasta memnuniyeti

Kaynakça

  • Molner Git-Z. Orthotic management of children. ln: Redford JB. ed. Orthotics. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1995ıl37—165.
  • Stenger M. [Joe of orthoses in pediatrics. In: Deborah AN, ed. Orthotics in Functional Rehabilitation of The Lower Limh. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; |99?:245-2'72. Morris C. A review of the efficacy ol' lower-limb orthoses used for cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. ;44:205-21 ] . Polliaek AA. lilliot S, Landsbcrgcr SE. ct at. Lower extremity orthoses for children with myelomeningocele: user and orthotist perspectives. JPO. 2001 ; l 3: I 23— I 33.
  • Naslund A, Tamm M, Ericsson AK, et al. Dynamic ankle-foot orthoscs as a part of treatment in children with spastic diplegia: parents“ perceptions. Physiother Res Int. ;8:59-68. Garralda ME, Muntoni F, Cunnif A, ct al. Knee-ankle- foot orthosis in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: user views and adjustment. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2006;10: I86—l9l.
  • Pcclharnbaran A. The Relationship between performance. satisfaction, and well being for patients using anterior and posterior design knee-ankIe-foot orthosis. JPO. 2000;12: 33-40.
  • Heinemann AW, Bode RK. O*Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instnlmenls. Prosthet Orthot Int. ;27: [9 —206. Bernhardt KA, Irby SE. Kaufman KR. Consumer opinions oF a stance control knee orlltosis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30:246-256. ammo; Rehabilitasyon 18(3) 2007
  • Tyson SF. Thornton HA. The effect of a hinged ankle foot orthosis on hemiplegic gait: objective measures and users‘ opinions. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:53-58.
  • )emcrs L, Monette M. Lapierre Y. et al. Reliability, validity. and applicability ol'thc Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. ;24:21—30. Wessels RD, De Wine Ll’. Reliability and vality ofthe Dutch version onUEST 2.0 with users ol' various types Haehisuka K, Makine K. Wade F. Clinical application ol" carbon Şbre reinforced plastic leg orthosis for polio survivors and its advantages and disadvantages. Prosthct Orthot Int. 2006;30:129-l35.
  • Stevens PM. Lower limb orthotic management of duchertne muscular dystropy: a literature review. “’0. ; 8:lll-119.
Toplam 8 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Yazarlar

Bu kişi benim

Suat Erel Bu kişi benim

İ. Engin Şimşek Bu kişi benim

Nilgün Bek Bu kişi benim

Banu Bayar Bu kişi benim

Altan Alan Bu kişi benim

Yavuz Yakut Bu kişi benim

Fatma Uygur Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Aralık 2007
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2007 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3