Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Comparison of personal independence between soft dressing and immediate postoperative prosthesis method in older diabetic amputees

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

1 Department of Orthosis and Prosthesis, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, Tehran

2 Department of Orthosis and Prosthesis, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran

3 Department of Orthosis and Prosthesis, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran

Abstract

Background: Elderly diabetic patients face a lack of independence in daily and social activities such as going to the toilet and bathing, aside from walking and communication, which are affected by the ability to stand and walk bilaterally. This study aims to compare the rehabilitative outcome of post-amputation soft dressing with IPOp
Method and materials: In this randomized clinical trial study four parameters were measured, including the time between amputation and the first standing, amputation and taking the first steps, amputation and an independent personal activity and amputation and fitting the first permanent prosthesis. Thirty elderly diabetic patients (aged 65-80) were divided into two groups. The Intervention group received IPOP and the control group received soft dressing.
results: Patients who received immediate post-operative prosthesis took significantly lower time in all four variables.
Conclusion: The results showed that it takes the control group, on average, 148 days longer to receive their first final prosthesis and achieve the same ADL and social status as the intervention group. 

Keywords

References
1.    Geurts, A.C. and T.W. Mulder, Reorganisation of postural control following lower limb amputation: theoretical considerations and implications for rehabilitation. Physiother Theory Pract, 1992. 8(3): p. 145-157.
2.    Eneroth, M., Factors affecting wound healing after major amputation for vascular disease: a review. Prosthet Orthot Int, 1999. 23(3): p. 195-208.
3.    Smith, D.G., et al., Postoperative dressing and management strategies for transtibial amputations: a critical review. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2003. 40(3): p. 213-224.
4.    Golbranson, F., C. Asbelle, and D. Strand, Immediate Postsurgical Fitting and Early Ambulation: A New Concept in Amputee Rehabilitation. Clin Orthop Relat Res (1976-2007), 1968. 56: p. 119-132.
5.    BURGEss, E.M. and R.L. ROMANO, 12 The Management of Lower Extremity Amputees Using Immediate Postsurgical Prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res®, 1968. 57: p. 137-146.
6.    Bonner Jr, F. and R. Green, Pneumatic Airleg prosthesis: report of 200 cases. J Phys Med Rehabil, 1982. 63(8): p. 383-385.
7.    Decker, T.D., et al., Bent Knee Temporary Prosthesis to Support Early Ambulation after Transtibial Amputation: A Case Report. Pm&r, 2019. 11(9): p. 1027-1030.
8.    Ali, M.M., et al., A contemporary comparative analysis of immediate postoperative prosthesis placement following below-knee amputation. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 2013. 27(8): p. 1146-1153.
9.    Kihn, R.B., et al., The immediate postoperative prosthesis in lower extremity amputations. Arch Surg, 1970. 101(1): p. 40-44.
10.  MOORE, T.J., et al., Prosthetic usage following major lower extremity amputation. Clin Orthop Relat Res®, 1989. 238: p. 219-224.
11.  Schon, L.C., et al., Benefits of early prosthetic management of transtibial amputees: a prospective clinical study of a prefabricated prosthesis. Foot Ankle Int, 2002. 23(6): p. 509-514.
12.  Samuelsen, B.T., et al., The impact of the immediate postoperative prosthesis on patient mobility and quality of life after transtibial amputation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2017. 96(2): p. 116-119.
13.  Walsh, T.L., Custom removable immediate postoperative prosthesis. J Prosthet Orthot, 2003. 15(4): p. 158-161.
14.  Folsom, D., T. King, and J.R. Rubin, Lower-extremity amputation with immediate postoperative prosthetic placement. Am J Surg, 1992. 164(4): p. 320-322.
15.  Horne, C.E. and J.A. Neil, Quality of life in patients with prosthetic legs: a comparison study. J Prosthet Orthot, 2009. 21(3): p. 154-159.
16.  Pinzur, M.S., et al., A safe, pre-fabricated, immediate postoperative prosthetic limb system for rehabilitation of below-knee amputations. Orthopedics, 1989. 12(10): p. 1343-1345.
17.  Burgess, E.M., J.E. Traub, and A.B. Wilson, Immediate postsurgical prosthetics in the management of lower extremity amputees. 1967: Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service, Veterans Administration.
18.  Hayes, J., et al., Immediate FIT Prosthesis, in Control Aspects of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 1983, Elsevier. p. 145-148.
19.  Pinzur, M.S., G. Graham, and H. Osterman, Psychologic testing in amputation rehabilitation. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1988(229): p. 236-240.
20.  PINZUR, M.S., et al., Functional outcome of below-knee amputation in peripheral vascular insufficiency: a multicenter review. Clin Orthop Relat Res®, 1993. 286: p. 247-249.
21.  Sage, R.A., et al., Amputation and rehabilitation of the diabetic foot, in The diabetic foot. 2006, Springer. p. 363-389.
22.  Pinzur, M., New concepts in lower-limb amputation and prosthetic management. Instr Course Lect, 1990. 39: p. 361.
23.  Pinzur, M., Current concepts: amputation surgery in peripheral vascular disease. Instr Course Lect, 1997. 46: p. 501.
24.  Ottenbacher, K.J., et al., The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. J Phys Med Rehabil, 1996. 77(12): p. 1226-1232.
25.  Rost, K.M., et al., Change in metabolic control and functional status after hospitalization: impact of patient activation intervention in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care, 1991. 14(10): p. 881-889.
 
Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research
Volume 8, Issue 2
June 2021
Pages 57-61
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics