Author/Editor		Burger, Helena
Title		Ocenjavnje izida rehabilitacije po amputaciji zgornjega uda
Type		članek
Source		In: Burger H, editor. Amputacije in protetika. Zbornik predavanj 13. dnevi rehabilitacijske medicine; 2002 mar 15-16; Ljubljana. 1. izd. Ljubljana: Inštitut Republike Slovenije za rehabilitacijo,
Publication year		2002
Volume		str. 131-39
Language		slo
Abstract		Measurement of outcome after upperlimb amputation can be done from the viewpoint of impairment, activity (disability) and participation (handicap) or more from the viewpoint of technology, user satisfaction and quality of life. Due to the complex function of a human hand there arise some problems in the measurement of outcome. Measures of impairment, such as range of motion and musle strength, are more important for the decision on the type of the prosthesis and its components than for the measurement of outcome. At the activity level, we can choose between scales developed for other pathologies, scales for ADL, tests for evaluating the upper limb and hand function, scales developed specially for subjects after upper-limb amputation or questionnaires. There are very few measures developed specifically forsubjects after upper limb amputation. Most authors report the acceptance/rejection rate and factors that influence the upper limb prosthetic use. Some divide them into functional groups, they assess the use of the prosthesis at different activities of daily living and satisfaction with the prosthesis. Datta (9) made a set of timed performance task tests. Sanderson (51) developed the University of New 8runswick Test of prosthetic function (the UN8 test) for children. It assesses prosthetic performance with developmentally based, age-appropriate activities. Thornby (60) designed a developmentally based observational test to assess bimanual activity and Edefstein (16) an observational test to compare functional abilities. Wright (65) developed the Prosthetic Upper Extremity Functional Index (PUFl). Participation (handicap) has been assessed by lifestyle changes and return. In these studies, postal questionnaires were used, as well as interviews while Jones (28) made a telephone surveyand Kejlaa (30) made home visits. Luntern (36), in addition to using a questionnaire, observed the prosthetic use at 50 activities to work. (Abstract truncated at 2000 characters).
Descriptors		AMPUTATION ARM DISABILITY EVALUATION ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING ORTHOTIC DEVICES QUALITY OF LIFE