The process of becoming a user of an osseointegrated prosthesis following transfemoral amputation: a qualitative study

References

• Penn-Barwell JG. Outcomes in lower limb amputation following trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2001;42:1474–1479.
   Google Scholar
• Ephraim PL, Wegener ST, Mackenzie EJ, et al. Phantom pain, residual limb pain, and back pain in amputees: results of a National Survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1910–1919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Godoy JMP, Braile DM, Buzatto SHG, et al. Quality of life after amputation. Psychol Health Med. 2002;7:397–400.
   Google Scholar
• Sinha R, Van Den Heuvel WJA. A systematic literature review of quality of life in lower limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:833–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horgan O, Maclachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:837–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senra H, Oliveira RA, Leal I, et al. Beyond the body image: a qualitative study on how adults experience lower limb amputation. Clin Rehabil. 2011;26:180–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybarczyk B, Edwards R, Behel J. Diversity in adjustment to a leg amputation: case illustrations of common themes. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:944–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh R, Ripley D, Pentland B, et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms after lower limb amputation: the rise and fall. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:281–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawamdeh ZM, Othman YS, Ibrahim AI. Assessment of anxiety and depression after lower limb amputation in Jordanian patients. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2008;4:627–633.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norlyk A, Martinsen B, Kjaer-Petersen K. Living with clipped wings - patients’ experience of losing a leg. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2013;8:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, Maclachlan M, et al. Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:1314–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CD. Being like everybody else: the personal meanings of being a prosthesis user. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:573–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagberg K, Brånemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25:186–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler K, Bowen C, Hughes A-M, et al. A systematic review of the key factors affecting tissue viability and rehabilitation outcomes of the residual limb in lower extremity traumatic amputees. J Tissue Viability. 2014;23:81–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, Mackenzie EJ, et al. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations – a long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80:563–571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, Maclachlan M. Adjustment to an artificial limb: a qualitative perspective. J Health Psychol. 2001;6:85–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, et al. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:659–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyon CC, Kulkarni J, Zimerson E, et al. Skin disorders in amputees. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42:501–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meulenbelt HE, Geertzen JH, Jonkman MF. Determinants of skin problems of the stump in lower-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:74–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks LJ, Michael JW. Science, medicine, and the future: Artificial limbs. BMJ. 2001;323:732–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagberg K, Brånemark R. One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses – rehabilitation perspective. J Rehabil Dev. 2009;46:331–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brånemark R, Berlin Ö, Hagberg K, et al. A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation – a prospective study of 51 patients. Bone Joint J. 2014;96:106–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Brånemark R. Osseointegrated prostheses for rehabilitation following amputation: the pioneering Swedish model. Der Unfallchirurg. 2017;120:285–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan J, Uden M, Robinson KP, et al. Rehabilitation of the trans-femoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: the United Kingdom experience. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:114–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagberg K, Brånemark R, Gunterberg B, et al. Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2-year follow-up. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:29–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Meent H, Hopman MT, Frölke JP. Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:2174–2178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frossard L, Hagberg K, Häggström E, et al. Functional outcome of transfemoral amputees fitted with an osseointegrated fixation: temporal gait characteristics. J Prosthet Orthot. 2010;22:11–20.
   Google Scholar
• Hagberg K, Häggström E, Uden M, et al. Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: Hip range of motion and sitting comfort. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:153–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagberg K, Hansson E, Brånemark R. Outcome of percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses for patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation at two-year follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:2120–2127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranberg R, Zügner R, Kärrholm J. Improvements in hip- and pelvic motion for patients with osseointegrated trans-femoral prostheses. Gaint Posture. 2011;33:165–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Eck CF, McGough RL. Clinical outcome of osseointegrated prostheses for lower extremity amputations: a systematic review of the literature. Curr Orthop Pract. 2015;26:349–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leijendekkers RA, van Hinte G, Frölke JP, et al. Comparison of bone-anchored prostheses and socket prostheses for patients with a lower extremity amputation: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:1045–1058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tillander J, Hagberg K, Hagberg L, et al. Osseointegrated titanium implants for limb prostheses attachments – infectious complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2781–2788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundberg M, Hagberg K, Bullington J. My prosthesis as a part of me: a qualitative analysis of living with an osseointegrated prosthetic limb. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:207–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research – methods, appraisal, and utilization. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg K, Dahlberg H, Nyström M. Reflective lifeworld research. 2nd ed. Malmö: Studentlitteratur; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg K. The essence of essences – the search for meaning structures in phenomenological analysis of lifeworld phenomena. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2006;1:11–19.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg H, Dahlberg K. To not make definite what is indefinite: a phenomenological analysis of perception and its epistemological consequences in human science research. Humanistic Psychol. 2003;31:34–50.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg K, Drew N. A lifeworld paradigm for nursing research. J Holist Nurs. 1997;15:303–317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Northern Nurses´ Federation (NNF). Ethical guidelines for nursing research in the Nordic countries. Norway: NNF; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Giorgi A. The theory, practice and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. J Phenomenol Psychol. 1997;28:235–260.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson BL. The shifting perspectives model of chronic illness. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001;33:21–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostler C, Ellis-Hill C, Donovan-Hall M. Expectations of rehabilitation following lower limb amputation: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1169–1175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frölke JPM, Leijendekkers RA, Van de Meent H. Osseointegrated prosthesis for patients with an amputation. Multidisciplinary team approach in the Netherlands. Der Unfallchirurg. 2017;120:293–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, et al. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rhenumatol. 2002;29:1273–1279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norlyk A, Harder I. What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological? An analysis of peer-reviewed empirical nursing studies. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:420–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar