Feminine identity and functional benefits are key factors in women’s decision making about upper limb prostheses: a case series

References

• Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkins DJ, Heard DC, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot. 1996;8:2–11.
   Google Scholar
• James MA, Bagley AM, Brasington K, et al. 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
• Kruger LM, Fishman S. Myoelectric and body-powered prostheses. J Pediatr Orthop. 1993;13:68–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:236–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. The roles of predisposing characteristics, established need, and enabling resources on upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:71–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raichle KA. Prosthesis use in persons with lower-and upper-limb amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45:961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR, MacKenzie EJ, et al. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:723–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyberd PJ, Hill W. Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:234–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Østlie K, Lesjø IM, Franklin RJ, et al. Prosthesis rejection in acquired major upper-limb amputees: a population-based survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7:294–303.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Multivariate prediction of upper limb prosthesis acceptance or rejection. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008;3:181–192.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Desteli EE, İmren Y, Erdoğan M, et al. Comparison of upper limb amputees and lower limb amputees: a psychosocial perspective. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014;40:735–739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris R. Focus on upper extremity: therapeutic influences on the upper-limb amputee. The Academy Today 2008;4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Racey J. Psychological adaptation to amputation. In: J.H. Bowker and J.W. Michael, editors. Atlas of limb prosthetics: surgical, and rehabilitation principles. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book Inc.;1992. p. 707–716.
   Google Scholar
• Winchell E. Body image: acceptance is step one. In Motion 1996;6:1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Murray CD. Gender, sexuality and prosthesis use: implications for rehabilitation. In: Amputation, prosthesis use, and phantom limb pain. New York (NY): Springer; 2009. p.115–127.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen DD. The beauty of prostheses: designing for female amputees. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. The DEKA Arm: its features, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:492–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K, et al. Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: user experience. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9:318–329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnik L, Klinger S. Attrition and retention in upper limb prosthetics research: experience of the VA home study of the DEKA arm. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:816–821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Etter K, Klinger SL, et al. Using virtual reality environment to facilitate training with advancedupper-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:707–718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond D, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84:506–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss AL, JM. Corbin Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Ware Jr JE, Snow KK, Mark Kosinski MS, et al. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute New England Medical Center; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Ottobock, MyoRotronic. 2014. Accessed April 30, 2018. https://professionals.ottobockus.com/Prosthetics/Upper-Limb-Prosthetics/Myo-Hands-and-Components/Myo-Wrist-Units-and-Rotation/MyoRotronic/p/13E205
   Google Scholar
• Ottobock, SensorHand Speed. Accessed April 30, 2018. https://professionals.ottobockus.com/Prosthetics/Upper-Limb-Prosthetics/Myo-Hands-and-Components/Myo-Terminal-Devices/SensorHand-Speed/p/8E38~58-L7%203~24
   Google Scholar
• Bionics T. The i-LIMB hand. Retrieved July 3rd, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Acluche F, Lieberman Klinger S, et al. Does the DEKA Arm substitute for or supplement conventional prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017. doi:10.1177/0309364617729924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crandall RC, 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
• Burger H, Marincek C. Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18:25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flannery JC, Faria SH. Limb loss: alterations in body image. J Vasc Nurs. 1999;17:100–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hanson W. Upper limb prosthetic components function vs. appearance. In Motion. 2003; https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/upper-limb-prosthetic-components
   Google Scholar
• Resnik LJ, Borgia ML, Acluche F. Perceptions of satisfaction, usability and desirability of the DEKA Arm before and after a trial of home use. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0178640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar