The systematic and participatory development of a patient decision aid about terminal devices for people with upper limb absence: The PDA-TULA.

Selecting an upper limb prosthesis seems to be a challenge considering the high rejection rates. A patient decision aid (PDA) could support the decision-making process by providing information about available options and clarifying the patients' values related to those options. This study aims to describe the developmental process of a PDA about terminal devices (TDs) for people with upper limb absence: PDA-TULA. The developmental process was based on The International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We aimed at adults with major unilateral upper limb absence. A steering group including patients, clinicians, researchers, software and implementation experts was composed. The content and design of the PDA were based on a qualitative literature meta-synthesis, focus groups with patients and clinicians, surveys among patients and prosthetists, a nationwide digital meeting with clinicians and prosthetists, and information from manufacturers. Information on features of TDs was systematically collected, ordered, and refined. Subsequently, drafts of the PDA-TULA were made, improved, integrated into the software, and alpha tested. The digital PDA-TULA consists of three parts: (1) information about TDs; (2) consideration of personal values regarding the TDs; (3) comparison of TD profiles with a personal profile based on indicated preferences. A summarizing overview is offered to patients and clinicians. To conclude, a digital PDA, which was integrated into the national working process of clinicians, was developed in a systematic co-creation process. The PDA enables patients and their significant others to consider and formulate their preferences about TDs during the prosthesis selection process.

The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise?

BACKGROUND: Multi-grip myoelectric hand prostheses (MHPs), with five movable and jointed fingers, have been developed to increase functionality. However, literature comparing MHPs with standard myoelectric hand prostheses (SHPs) is limited and inconclusive. To establish whether MHPs increase functionality, we compared MHPs with SHPs on all categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-model (ICF-model). METHODS: MHP users (N = 14, 64.3% male, mean age = 48.6 years) performed physical measurements (i.e., Refined Clothespin Relocation Test (RCRT), Tray-test, Box and Blocks Test, Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure) with their MHP and an SHP to compare the joint angle coordination and functionality related to the ICF-categories 'Body Function' and 'Activities' (within-group comparisons). SHP users (N = 19, 68.4% male, mean age = 58.1 years) and MHP users completed questionnaires/scales (i.e., Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey-The Upper Extremity Functional Status Survey /OPUS-UEFS, Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales for upper extremity/TAPES-Upper, Research and Development-36/RAND-36, EQ-5D-5L, visual analogue scale/VAS, the Dutch version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology/D-Quest, patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses/PUF-ULP) to compare user experiences and quality of life in the ICF-categories 'Activities', 'Participation', and 'Environmental Factors' (between-group comparisons). RESULTS: 'Body Function' and 'Activities': nearly all users of MHPs had similar joint angle coordination patterns with an MHP as when they used an SHP. The RCRT in the upward direction was performed slower in the MHP condition compared to the SHP condition. No other differences in functionality were found. 'Participation': MHP users had a lower EQ-5D-5L utility score; experienced more pain or limitations due to pain (i.e., measured with the RAND-36). 'Environmental Factors': MHPs scored better than SHPs on the VAS-item holding/shaking hands. The SHP scored better than the MHP on five VAS-items (i.e., noise, grip force, vulnerability, putting clothes on, physical effort to control) and the PUF-ULP. CONCLUSION: MHPs did not show relevant differences in outcomes compared to SHPs on any of the ICF-categories. This underlines the importance of carefully considering whether the MHP is the most suitable option for an individual taking into account the additional costs of MHPs.

User-relevant factors influencing the prosthesis use of persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee-disarticulation: A meta-synthesis of qualitative literature and focus group results.

OBJECTIVE: Persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee-disarticulation are heavily reliant on an adequate set of components for their prosthesis. To improve the process of adjusting the specific prosthetic properties to the expectations of the prosthesis users, it is of importance to first identify which factors have an influence on prosthesis use. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors that influence prosthesis use in adults with a transfemoral amputation or knee-disarticulation. METHODS: A qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted by searching five databases (last update January 20th 2022). Studies were considered eligible if they contained qualitative data about adult persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee-disarticulation with experience in using a prosthesis and focused on the users' opinions. All eligible studies were independently screened by two reviewers. The results sections of the included studies were entered in Atlas.ti software (v8) and coded using the framework approach. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) qualitative research checklist. Results of the meta-synthesis were validated with prosthesis users (n = 8) in a focus group. RESULTS: Out of 5757 articles, 14 studies were included. An overview of seven themes ('prosthesis related'; 'rehabilitation, costs and prosthetist'; 'mental'; 'physical'; 'social'; 'activities and participation' and 'walking') containing 84 factors was created. Ten factors were added during the focus group, resulting in an overview of 94 factors that may influence the prosthesis use of lower-limb prosthesis users. Participants would like more user-involvement from the rehabilitation team. The development of a patient decision aid could help this process in the future. CONCLUSION: The large number of factors demonstrates that there is a great variety between prosthesis users and the factors that influence their prosthesis use. Therefore, it is important to take individual preferences into account for the selection of a new prosthesis.

Economic evaluation of upper limb prostheses in the Netherlands including the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip versus standard myoelectric hand prostheses.

PURPOSE: To investigate the costs, quality of life, and user experiences associated with upper limb prosthesis use, and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip compared to standard myoelectric hand prostheses (MHPs/SHPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EQ-5D-5L to assess the quality of life, the patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prosthesis (PUF-ULP), and a cost questionnaire (societal perspective) were completed by 242 prosthesis users (57% men; mean age = 58 years). Incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICUR/ICER) with respectively the EQ-5D-5L and PUF-ULP were calculated to compare MHPs with SHPs. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. Netherlands Trial Registry number: NL7682. RESULTS: The mean yearly total costs related to prosthesis use of MHPs (€54 112) and SHPs (€23 501) were higher compared to prostheses with tools/accessories (€11 977), body-powered (€11 298), and cosmetic/passive prostheses (€10 132). EQ-5D-5L and PUF-ULP scores did not differ between prosthesis types. ICUR was €-728 833 per quality-adjusted life year; ICER was €-187 798 per PUF-ULP point gained. CONCLUSIONS: Myoelectric prostheses, especially MHPs, were most expensive compared to other prostheses, while no differences in quality of life and user experiences were apparent. MHPs were not cost-effective compared to SHPs. When prescribing MHPs, careful consideration of advantages over SHPs is recommended.

Myoelectric upper limb prostheses, especially the multi-grip hands, were more expensive than all other types of upper limb prostheses.Health-related quality of life and user experiences were comparable in users of different types of upper limb prostheses.Acquisition costs mainly explained the differences in costs related to upper limb prosthesis use.Prescription of multi-grip hand prostheses should be considered carefully, since these are not cost-effective compared to standard myoelectric hand prostheses.

Towards assessing the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses: most important items regarding prosthesis use in people with major unilateral upper limb absence-a Dutch national survey.

PURPOSE: To determine which items regarding prosthesis use were considered most important by adults with major unilateral upper limb absence (ULA) and to develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses: PUF-ULP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a qualitative meta-synthesis combined with input from patients and clinicians a graphical diagram of 79 items related to prosthesis use was developed. Adults with ULA (N = 358; mean age = 55.4 ± 16.5 years; 52.0% male/40.8% female/7.3% unknown) selected their top-10 of most important items from this diagram. This study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register: NL7682. RESULTS: Most selected items were "wearing comfort" (54.0% of cases), "grabbing, picking up, and holding" (34.3%), and "weight" (31.4%). All subpopulations (i.e. age, sex, origin of ULA, level of ULA, and prosthesis type), except multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis users (MHP), selected "wearing comfort" most. Nine items were included in the PUF-ULP: "wearing comfort," "functionality," "independence," "work, hobby, and household," "user-friendly," "life-like appearance," "phantom limb pain," "overuse complaints," and "reliability." CONCLUSIONS: All prosthesis users, except MHP-users, considered wearing comfort most important, which might be of interest for future research and industry. The PUF-ULP can be used to reflect the match between users and their prostheses.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAll persons with upper limb absence, except multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis users, considered "wearing comfort" most important regarding prosthesis use, which highlights that prosthesis wearing comfort deserves more attention in future research to increase the value placed by the user on their upper limb prosthesis.Regarding prosthesis use, men considered "ease of control" more important compared to the overall population, while women considered "independence," "household," "life-like appearance," "overuse complaints," and "anonymity" more important.Persons with a mono- or multi-grip myoelectric upper limb prosthesis rated function-related items as more important compared to the overall population, while persons with a passive/cosmetic prosthesis rated comfort-related and appearance-related items as more important.The newly developed measurement tool, also called the PUF-ULP, provides a single score that represents the match between the user and their upper limb prosthesis.

User-relevant factors determining prosthesis choice in persons with major unilateral upper limb defects: A meta-synthesis of qualitative literature and focus group results.

OBJECTIVE: Considering the high rejection rates of upper limb prostheses, it is important to determine which prosthesis fits best the needs of each user. The introduction of the multi-grip prostheses hands (MHP), which have functional advantages but are also more expensive, has made prosthesis selection even harder. Therefore, we aimed to identify user opinions on factors determining prosthesis choice of persons with major unilateral upper limb defects in order to facilitate a more optimal fit between user and prosthesis. METHODS: A qualitative meta-synthesis using a 'best-fit framework' approach was performed by searching five databases (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019126973). Studies were considered eligible if they contained qualitative content about adults with major unilateral upper limb defects experienced in using commercially available upper limb prostheses and focused on upper limb prosthesis users' opinions. Results of the meta-synthesis were validated with end-users (n = 11) in a focus group. RESULTS: Out of 6247 articles, 19 studies were included. An overview of six main themes ('physical', 'activities and participation', 'mental', 'social', 'rehabilitation, cost and prosthetist services' and 'prosthesis related factors') containing 86 subthemes that could affect prosthesis choice was created. Of these subthemes, 19 were added by the focus group. Important subthemes were 'work/school', 'functionality' and 'reactions from public'. Opinions of MHP-users were scarce. MHPs were experienced as more dexterous and life-like but also as less robust and difficult to control. CONCLUSION: The huge number of factors that could determine upper limb prosthesis choice explains that preferences vary greatly. The created overview can be of great value to identify preferences and facilitate user-involvement in the selection process. Ultimately, this may contribute to a more successful match between user and prosthesis, resulting in a decrease of abandonment and increase of cost-effectiveness.

Snapping of the annular ligament: a uncommon injury characterised by snapping or locking of the elbow with good surgical outcomes.

PURPOSE: Snapping annular ligament is an uncommon cause of lateral elbow pain. The purpose of this case series was to evaluate the clinical presentation and surgical outcomes for snapping annular ligament. METHODS: Included were 23 patients with snapping annular ligament who received surgical treatment between 2007 and 2016. There were two treatment groups with either resection (arthroscopic or open procedure, n = 15) or open annular ligament reconstruction (n = 8). Patients were assessed with the Mayo Elbow Performance Index and the Oxford Elbow Score. Preoperative and postoperative scores were compared with a paired t test. RESULTS: Pain was located laterally in nine patients (39.1%), anteriorly in three patients (13.0%), anterolaterally in two patients (8.7%), and diffusely in nine patients (39.1%). In total, 16 patients (69.6%) experienced a snapping sensation and ten patients (43.5%) locking of the elbow. According to the patients' reported outcomes, their symptoms improved significantly after both procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest case series in the literature on snapping annular ligament, an uncommon cause of lateral elbow pain. Good treatment results are expected with resection of the interpositioned part of the annular ligament or annular ligament reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.