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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Silcox, D. H.
Right arrow Articles by Fleming, L. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Silcox, D. H.
Right arrow Articles by Fleming, L. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 75, Issue 12 1781-1789, Copyright © 1993 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

Myoelectric prostheses. A long-term follow-up and a study of the use of alternate prostheses

DH Silcox, MD Rooks, RR Vogel and LL Fleming
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Forty-four patients who had had a total of forty-seven amputations of an upper extremity and who had had a myoelectric prosthesis for more than two years were evaluated retrospectively for the amount of use of the prosthesis, the use of any other prosthesis, and the demographic factors that might be related to use of the prosthesis. The average duration of follow-up was five years (range, twenty-five months to seventeen years). Forty of the forty-four patients also had a conventional prosthesis. Twenty-two patients (50 per cent) rejected the myoelectric prosthesis completely; thirteen (32 per cent) of the forty patients who also had a conventional prosthesis rejected the conventional prosthesis completely. The patients who used the myoelectric device the least were employed in occupations that required high-demand use of the prosthesis (lifting of more than 4.5 kilograms [ten pounds] or repetitive manual labor) or were receiving or seeking Workers' Compensation, or both.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
K Postema, V van der Donk, J van Limbeek, R A. Rijken, and M J Poelma
Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect
Clinical Rehabilitation, March 1, 1999; 13(3): 243 - 249.
[Abstract] [PDF]