Funcionalidad posprotésica en amputados vasculares

Vida Patiño; Marta Arriola; Verónica Franco; José Fuentes

Authors

Vida Patiño Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Cátedra de Fisiatría, Prof. Adj.
Marta Arriola Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Cátedra de Fisiatría, Asistente
Verónica Franco Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Cátedra de Fisiatría, Asistente
José Fuentes Universidad de la República, Facultad de Química, Área de Estadística, Encargado. Licenciado en Matemáticas

Keywords:

VASCULAR PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION, AMPUTATED, LOWER EXTREMITY, FOLLOW-UP STUDIES, RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES

Abstract

Background: prosthetization is a goal to reach for vascular amputees patients in order to achieve acceptable functional levels and to increase quality of life.
Objective: to measure post-prosthetic functionality in vascular amputees.
Methods: a retrospective, longitudinal, descriptive and analytic study is described, n = 58, prosthetic vascular amputees at least one year longer. Functionality achieved in the first year and each successive year following the prosthesis was measured using Russek’s Code and hours of prosthesis use.
Results: the median age was 70.5. Seventy-one percent (71%) were men. Co-morbility was seen in 86% of the population and diabetes in 51%. Bellow-knee amputees represented 69% of the population and above-knee amputees, 31%. Functionality at year was 41% (Russek, complete rehabilitation) and 80% considering levels 1, 2 and 3 (Russek, functional independence); prosthesis use reached at least half of the expected walk-hours. Followed up patients maintained functionality at year four. Age and above-knee amputation were associated with functionality. Diabetes was not associated with functionality.
Conclusions: Russek’s scale was a simple and rapid tool to measure postprosthetic functionality for everyday life activities and walk.

References

(1) Henderson E, Schimchack M. Estudio prospectivo de amputaciones del miembro inferior. Cir Urug 1988; 58(1): 13-6.
(2) Jensen J, Mandrup-Poulsen T, Krasnik M. Prosthetic fitting in lower limb amputees. Acta Orthop Scand 1983; 54(1): 101-3.
(3) Kullmann L.Evaluation of disability and results of rehabilitation with the use of the Barthel index and the Russek’s classification. Int Disabil Stud 1987; 9(2): 68-71.
(4) Leung E, Rush P, Devlin M. Predicting prothetic rehabilitation outcome in lower limb amputee patients with the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 605-8.
(5) Chan KM, Tan ES. Use of lower limb prosthesis among elderly amputees. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1990; 19(6): 811-6.
(6) Henderson E, Balboa O, Castro D, Bisio H. Análisis sobre niveles de amputación. Cir Urug 1986; 56(1): 40-3.
(7) Pohjolainen T, Alaranta H, Wikstrom J. Primary survival and prosthetic fitting of lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1989; 13(2): 63-9.
(8) Helm P, Engel T, Holm A, Kristiansen V, Rosendahl S. Function after lower limb amputation. Acta Orthop Scand 1986; 57(2): 154-7.
(9) Cutson TM, Bongiorni D. Rehabilitation of the older lower limb amputee: a brief review. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996; 44(11): 1388-93.
(10) Nehler MR, Coll JR, Hiatt WR, Regensteiner JG, Schnickel GT, Klenke WA, et al. Functional outcome in a contemporary series of major lower extremity amputations. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38(1): 7-14.
(11) Kauzlaric N, Sekelj-Kauzlaric K, Jelic M. Experience in prosthetic supply of patients with lower limb amputations in Croatia. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002; 26(2): 93-100.