This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MURRAY, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by TREFLER, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by MURRAY, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by TREFLER, E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1972;54:1658-1664.
© 1972 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


Prostheses for Children with Unilateral Congenital Absence of the Hand

J. F. MURRAY M.D., F.R.C.S. (C)1, B. SHORE B.SC., M.D.C.M., F.R.C.S. (C)1, and E. TREFLER P. AND O.T. REG.1

1 From the Ontario Crippled Children's Centre, Toronto

The prosthetic wearing habits of seventy children with unilateral congenital absence of the hand were reviewed. These consisted of twenty-four children with acheiria, thirty-one with adactylia, and fifteen with aphalangia.

Four types of functional prostheses were used for these patients: the inactive spatula, the Dorrance hook, and the Dorrance hand. A cosmetic glove was prescribed for five children.

Thirty-nine of these children were wearing a prosthesis at the time of writing. Twenty-two were wearing it at all times, seventeen only for specific activities.

Thirty-one children rejected the prosthesis, nineteen primarily after one or two clinic visits, and twelve after having used it for periods of ten months to seven years.

The factors that were observed to influence a child's prosthetic wearing habits are described and the observations of the functions of children with and without a prosthesis are reported. We are of the opinion that surgical construction of an opposition post is not warranted for this deformity.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?