The roles of predisposing characteristics, established need, and enabling resources on upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment

References

• Anderson R M. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter?. J Health Soc Behav 1995; 36: 1–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millstein S G, Heger H, Hunter G A. Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: a comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 1986; 10: 27–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scotland T R, Galway H R. A long-term review of children with congenital and acquired upper limb deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1983; 65: 346–349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durance J P, O'Shea B J. Upper limb amputees: a clinic profile. Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10: 68–72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glynn M K, Galway H R, Hunter G, Sauter W F. Management of the upper-limb-deficient child with a powered prosthetic device. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 209: 202–205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright T W, Hagen A D, Wood M B. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg [Am] 1995; 20: 619–622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger H, Marincek C. Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia. Prosthet Orthot Int 1994; 18: 25–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid D, Fay A. Survey of juvenile hand amputees. J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin [serial online] 1987; 22(3), Available: http://www.acpoc.org/library/1987_03_051.asp via the INTERNET. 2005 Nov 5
   Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Vincent C, Morissette M J, Desaulniers L. Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001; 25: 119–131
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egermann M, Thomsen M. Myoelectric prostheses for kindergarten age children. Analysis of first reactions and experiences. Orthopade 2003; 32: 164–169
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagberg K, Haggstrom E, Uden M, Branemark R. 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
• Branemark R, Branemark P I, Rydevik B, Myers R R. Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. J Rehabil Res Develop 2001; 38: 175–181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpaneto J, Micera S, Zaccone F, Vecchi F, Dario P. A sensorized thumb for force closed-loop control of hand neuroprostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2003; 11: 346–353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cranny A, Cotton D PJ, Chappell P H, Beeby S P, White N M. Thick-film force and slip sensors for a prosthetic hand. Sens Actuators A 2005; 123 – 124: 162–171
   Google Scholar
• Riso R R. Strategies for providing upper extremity amputees with tactile and hand position feedback-moving closer to the bionic arm. Technol Health Care 1999; 7: 401–409
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zecca M, Cappiello G, Sebastiani F, Roccella S, Vecchi F, Carrozza M C, et al. Experimental analysis of the proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensors of an underactuated prosthetic hand. Lect Notes Contr Inf 2004; 306: 233–242
   Google Scholar
• Kejlaa G H. Consumer concerns and the functional value of prostheses to upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993; 17: 157–163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudkiewicz I, Gabrielov R, Seiv-Ner I, Zelig G, Heim M. Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 60–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kooijman C, Dijkstra P, Geertzen J, Elzinga A, van der Schans C. Phantom pain and phantom sensations in upper limb amputees: An epidemiological study. Pain 2000; 87: 33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lunteren A, van Lunteren-Gerritsen G H, Stassen H G, Zuithoff M J. A field evaluation of arm prostheses for unilateral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1983; 7: 141–151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaine W J, Smart C, Bransby-Zachary M. Upper limb traumatic amputees. Review of prosthetic use. J Hand Surg [Br] 1997; 22: 73–76
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Datta D, Selvarajah K, Davey N. Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency – acquired and congenital. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 172–177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther 2002; 15: 62–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pinzur M S, Angelats J, Light T R, Izuierdo R, Pluth T. Functional outcome following traumatic upper limb amputation and prosthetic limb fitting. J Hand Surg [Am] 1994; 19: 836–839
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L E, Davidson J H. The long-term outcome of upper limb amputees treated at a rehabilitation centre in Sydney, Australia. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 437–442
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montoya P, Larbig W, Grulke N, Flor H, Taub E, Birbaumer N. The relationship of phantom limb pain to other phantom limb phenomena in upper extremity amputees. Pain 1997; 72: 87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wartan S W, Hamann W, Wedley J R, McColl I. Phantom pain and sensation among British veteran amputees. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 652
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra P U, Geertzen J HB, Stewart R, van der Schans C P. Phantom pain and risk factors: A multivariate analysis. J Pain Symptom Manag 2002; 24: 578
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotze M, Grodd W, Birbaumer N, Erb M, Huse E, Flor H. Does use of a myoelectric prosthesis prevent cortical reorganization and phantom limb pain?. Nature neuroscience 1999; 2: 501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss T, Miltner W H, Adler T, Bruckner L, Taub E. Decrease in phantom limb pain associated with prosthesis-induced increased use of an amputation stump in humans. Neurosci Lett 1999; 272: 131
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dettmers C, Adler T, Rzanny R, van Schayck R, Gaser C, Weiss T, et al. Increased excitability in the primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area in patients with phantom limb pain after upper limb amputation. Neurosci Lett 2001; 307: 109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karl A, Birbaumer N, Lutzenberger W, Cohen L G, Flor H. Reorganization of motor and somatosensory cortex in upper extremity amputees with phantom limb pain. J Neurosci 2001; 21: 3609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotze M, Flor H, Grodd W, Larbig W, Birbaumer N. Phantom movements and pain an fMRI study in upper limb amputees. Brain 2001; 124: 2268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturup J, Thyregod H C, Jensen J S, Retpen J B, Boberg G, Rasmussen E, et al. Traumatic amputation of the upper limb: the use of body-powered prostheses and employment consequences. Prosthet Orthot Int 1988; 12: 50–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill A. Phantom limb pain: A review of the literature on attributes and potential mechanisms. J Pain Symptom Manag 1999; 17: 125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolajsen L, Staehelin Jensen T. Phantom limb pain. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaperman J, Landsberger S E, Setoguchi Y. Early Upper limb prosthesis fitting: when and what do we fit? Prosthetic and orthotic science. J Prosthet Orthot 2003; 15: 11–17
   Google Scholar
• Black N, Biden E N, Rickards J. Using potential energy to measure work related activities for persons wearing upper limb prostheses. Robotica 2005; 23: 319–327
   Google Scholar
• Pons J L, Ceres R, Rocon E, Reynaerts D, Saro B, Levin S, et al. Objectives and technological approach to the development of the multifunctional MANUS upper limb prosthesis. Robotica 2005; 23: 301–310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pillet J, Didierjean-Pillet A. Aesthetic hand prosthesis: gadget or therapy? Presentation of a new classification. J Hand Surg [Br] 2001; 26: 523–528
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crandall R C, Tomhave W. Pediatric unilateral below-elbow amputees: retrospective analysis of 34 patients given multiple prosthetic options. J Pediatr Orthop 2002; 22: 380–383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruger L M, Fishman S. Myoelectric and body-powered prostheses. J Pediatr Orthop 1993; 13: 68–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser C M. An evaluation of the use made of cosmetic and functional prostheses by unilateral upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1998; 22: 216–223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leow M E, Pho R W, Pereira B P. Esthetic prostheses in minor and major upper limb amputations. Hand Clin 2001; 17: 489–497
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silcox D H, 3rd, Rooks M D, Vogel R R, Fleming L L. Myoelectric prostheses. A long-term follow-up and a study of the use of alternate prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 1781–1789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melendez D, Leblanc M. Survey of arm amputees not wearing prostheses: implications for research and service. J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin [serial online] 1988; 23(3), Available: http://www.acpoc.org/library/1988_03_062.asp via the INTERNET. 2005 Nov 5
   Google Scholar
• Roeschlein R A, Domholdt E. Factors related to successful upper extremity prosthetic use. Prosthet Orthot Int 1989; 13: 14–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrozza M C, Suppo C, Sebastiani F, Massa B, Vecchi F, Lazzarini R, et al. The SPRING hand: development of a self-adaptive prosthesis for restoring natural grasping. Autonomous Robots 2004; 16: 125–141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyberd P J, Light C, Chappell P H, Nightingale J M, Whatley D, Evans M. The design of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: A study of the Southampton hand. Robotica 2001; 19: 593–600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang J, Pena Pitarch E, Abdel-Malek K, Patrick A, Lindkvist L. A multi-fingered hand prosthesis. Mech Mach Theory 2004; 39: 555–581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light C M, Chappell P H. Development of a lightweight and adaptable multiple-axis hand prosthesis. Med Eng Phys 2000; 22: 679–684
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dechev N, Cleghorn W L, Naumann S. Multiple finger, passive adaptive grasp prosthetic hand. Mech Mach Theory 2001; 36: 1157–1173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva J, Heim W, Chau T (2004) MMG-based classification of muscle activity for prosthesis control. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 2004. September, 1 – 52004. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., San FranciscoUSA, 968
   Google Scholar
• Chan A DC, Englehart K B (2003) Continuous Classification of myoelectric signals for powered prostheses using Gaussian mixture models. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology; 2003. September, 17 – 212003. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., CancunMexico, 2841
   Google Scholar
• Nishikawa D, Yu W, Maruishi M, Watanabe I, Yokoi H, Mano Y, et al. On-line learning based electromyogram to forearm motion classifier with motor skill evaluation. JSME Int J Ser C 2000; 43: 906–915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trost F J. A comparison of conventional and myoelectric below-elbow prosthetic use. J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin [serial online] 1983; 18(4), Available: http://www.acpoc.org/library/1983_04_009.asp via the INTERNET. 2005 Nov 5
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard S, Kurtz I, Heim W, Montgomery G. Powered prosthetic intervention. Upper extremity deficiency. AAOS/Shrine Symposium: The Limb Deficient Child, J Herring, J Birch. American Academy of Orthopardic Surgeons, Rosemont, Ill 1997; 417–431
   Google Scholar
• Ballance R, Wilson B N, Harder J A. Factors affecting myoelectric prosthetic use and wearing patterns in the juvenile unilateral below-elbow amputee. Can J Occup Ther 1989; 56: 132–137
   Google Scholar
• Herberts P, Korner L, Caine K, Wensby L. Rehabilitation of unilateral below-elbow amputees with myoelectric prostheses. Scand J Rehabil Med 1980; 12: 123–128
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Postema K, van der Donk V, van Limbeek J, Rijken R A, Poelma M J. Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 243–249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davids Jon R, Wagner Lisa, Meyer V, Blackhurst, Leslie C, Dawn W. Prosthetic management of children with unilateral congenital below-elbow deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg. American volume 2006; 88: 1294
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hermansson L, Eliasson A C, Engstrom I. Psychosocial adjustment in Swedish children with upper-limb reduction deficiency and a myoelectric prosthetic hand. Acta Paediatr 2005; 94: 479–488
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuyper M A, Breedijk M, Mulders A H, Post M W, Prevo A J. Prosthetic management of children in The Netherlands with upper limb deficiencies. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001; 25: 228–234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell W. Leaving special school: the next step and future aspirations. Disabil Soc 1999; 14: 753–770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scal P, Ireland M. Addressing transition to adult health care for adolescents with special health care needs. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1607–1612
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umbarger G T, Turnbull H R, Morningstar M E, Reichard A. Funding challenges during transition to adulthood for young adults who use medical technology. J Develop Phys Disabil 2001; 13: 141–167
   Google Scholar
• Heger H, Millstein S, Hunter G A. Electrically powered prostheses for the adult with an upper limb amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985; 67: 278–281
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hacking H GA, van den Berg J P, Dahmen K T, Post M WM. Long-term outcome of upper limb prosthetic use in the Netherlands. Euro J Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 7: 179–181
   Google Scholar
• Datta D, Kingston J, Ronald J. Myoelectric prostheses for below-elbow amputees: the Trent experience. Int Disabil Stud 1989; 11: 167–170
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fraser C. A survey of users of upper limb prostheses. Br J Occup Ther 1993; 56: 166–168
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez A, Isusi I, Gomez M. Factors conditioning the return to work of upper limb amputees in Asturias, Spain. Prosthet Orthot Int 2000; 24: 143–147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West S L, McMahon B T, Monasterio E, Belongia L, Kramer K. Workplace discrimination and missing limbs: The national EEOC ADA research project. Work 2005; 25: 27–35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Webster J B, Levy C E, Bryant P R, Prusakowski P E. Sports and recreation for persons with limb deficiency. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: S38–S44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Northmore-Ball M D, Heger H, Hunter G A. The below-elbow myo-electric prosthesis: a comparison of the Otto Bock myo-electric prosthesis with the hook and functional hand. J Bone Joint Surg 1980; 62B: 363–367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakpa R, Heger H. Prosthetic management and training of adult upper limb amputees. Curr Orthopaedics 1997; 11: 193–202
   Google Scholar
• Burroughs S F, Brook J A. Patterns of acceptance and rejection of upper limb prostheses. Orthotics Prosthet 1985; 39: 40–47
   Google Scholar
• Lewis D, Behana K. The internet as a resource for consumer healthcare. Disease Manag Health Out 2001; 9: 241–247
   Google Scholar
• Wantland D J, Portillo C J, Holzemer W L, Slaughter R, McGhee E M. The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res 2004; 6: e40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menkveld S R, Schwartz M. Age-appropriateness of myoelectric prosthetic fitting. J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin [serial online] 1987; 22(3), Available: http://www.acpoc.org/library/1987_03_060.asp via the INTERNET. 2005 Nov 5
   Google Scholar
• Thornby M A, Krebs D E. Bimanual skill development in pediatric below-elbow amputation: a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 697–702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light C M, Chappell P H, Kyberd P J. Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 776–783
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Health Atlas [Internet]. World Health Organization; [Cited 2005 Nov 5]. Available from: http://www.who.int/globalatlas/dataQuery/
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskaranand K, Bhat A K, Acharya K N. Prosthetic rehabilitation in traumatic upper limb amputees (an Indian perspective). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123: 363–366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubbard S, Galway H R, Milner M. Myoelectric training methods for the preschool child with congenital below-elbow amputation. A comparison of two training programmes. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985; 67: 273–277
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Shea B J, Dunfield V A. Myoelectric training for preschool children. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983; 64: 451–455
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hasdai A, Jessel A S, Weiss P L. Use of a computer simulator for training children with disabilities in the operation of a powered wheelchair. Am J Occup Ther 1998; 52: 215–220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicsi K. A product-oriented teaching and training system for speech handicapped children. J Microcompute Appl 1995; 18: 287–297
   Google Scholar
• Weeks D L, Wallace S A, Anderson D I. Training with an upper-limb prosthetic simulator to enhance transfer of skill across limbs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks D L. The role of variability in practice structure when learning to use an upper-extremity prosthesis. J Prosthet Orthot 2003; 15: 84
   Google Scholar
• Lake C. Effects of prosthetic training on upper-extremity prosthesis use. J Prosthet Orthot 1997; 9: 3–9
   Google Scholar
• Kyberd P J, Te Winkel S, Poulton A. A wireless telemetry system for training users of upper limb prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002; 26: 78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebelius F, Eriksson L, Holmberg H, Levinsson A, Lundborg G, Danielsen N, et al. Classification of motor commands using a modified self-organising feature map. Med Eng Phys 2005; 27: 403–413
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karlik B, Tokhi M O, Alci M. A fuzzy clustering neural network architecture for multifunction upper-limb prosthesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2003; 50: 1255–1261
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhart K, Hudgins B. A robust, real time control scheme for multifunction myoelectric control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2003; 50: 1255–1261
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Livneh H, Antonak R F, Gerhardt J. Psychosocial adaptation to amputation: The role of sociodemographic variables, disability-related factors and coping strategies. Int J Rehabil Res 1999; 22: 21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biden E, Caldwell R, Leckey R, Stocker D, Lovely D (1997) An investigation into the effectiveness of fitting powered upper limb prostheses: the UNB experience. Proceedings of the UNB's Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium; 1997. July, 23 – 251997. Fredricton: Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of New Brunswick, FrederictonCanada, 2
   Google Scholar
• Kyberd P, Davey J, Morrison J. A survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Oxfordshire. J Prosthet Orthot [serial online] 1998; 10(4), Available: http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/1998_04_085.asp via the INTERNET. 2005 Nov 5
   Google Scholar
• Pruitt S D, Varni J W, Seid M, Setoguchi Y. Prosthesis satisfaction outcome measurement in pediatric limb deficiency. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78: 750–754
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermansson L M, Fisher A G, Bernspang B, Eliasson A C. Assessment of capacity for myoelectric control: a new Rasch-built measure of prosthetic hand control. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 166–171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruitt S D, Varni J W, Seid M, Setoguchi Y. Functional status in limb deficiency: development of an outcome measure for preschool children. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 405–411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruitt S D, Varni J W, Setoguchi Y. Functional status in children with limb deficiency: development and initial validation of an outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1233–1238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright V, Hubbard S, Naumann S, Jutai J. Evaluation of the validity of the prosthetic upper extremity functional index for children. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 518–527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varni J W, Setoguchi Y. Effects of parental adjustment on the adaptation of children with congenital or acquired limb deficiencies. J Develop Behav Ped 1993; 14: 13–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varni J W, Setoguchi Y, Rappaport L R, Talbot D. Psychological adjustment and perceived social support in children with congenital/acquired limb deficiencies. J Behav Med 1992; 15: 31–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varni J W, Setoguchi Y. Correlates of perceived physical appearance in children with congenital/acquired limb deficiencies. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1991; 12: 171–176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varni J W, Setoguchi Y, Rappaport L R, Talbot D. Effects of stress, social support, and self-esteem on depression in children with limb deficiencies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72: 1053–1058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyc V L. Psychosocial adaptation of children and adolescents with limb deficiencies: A review. Clin Psychol Rev 1992; 12: 275–291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray C D. The social meanings of prosthesis use. J Health Psychol 2005; 10: 425–441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James M A, Bagley A M, Brasington K, Lutz C, McConnell S, Molitor F. Impact of prostheses on function and quality of life for children with unilateral congenital below-the-elbow deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 2356–2365
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wald J, Alvaro R. Psychological factors in work-related amputation: considerations for rehabilitation counselors. J Rehab 2004; 70: 6–15
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigelow J, Korth M, Jacobs J, Anger N, Riddle M, Gifford J. A picture of amputees and the prosthetic situation in Haiti. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 246–252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Palazzi F, de Gutierrez D P, Paladino R. The care of the limb deficient child in Venezuela. Prosthet Orthot Int 1991; 15: 156–159
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake C, Miguelez J. Comparative analysis of microprocessors in upper limb prosthetics. J Prosthet Orthot [serial online] 2003; 15(2), Available: http://www.oandp.org/jop/library/2003_02_048.asp via the INTERNET. 2005 Nov 5
   Google Scholar
• Rogers J L. Serving amputee patients in rural settings. Caring 1998; 17: 32–33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LeBlanc M. Use of prosthetic prehensors. Prosthet Orthot Int 1988; 12: 152–154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkins D, Heard D, Donovan W. Epidemiologic Overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Ortho 1996; 9: 2–11
   Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int, (in press)
   Google Scholar
• Davidson J H, Jones L E, Cornet J, Cittarelli T. Management of the multiple limb amputee. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 688–699
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar