Effects of Prosthetic Socket Design on Residual Femur Motion Using Dynamic Stereo X-Ray - A Preliminary Analysis.

Individuals with transfemoral amputation experience relative motion between their residual limb and prosthetic socket, which can cause inefficient dynamic load transmission and secondary comorbidities that limit mobility. Accurately measuring the relative position and orientation of the residual limb relative to the prosthetic socket during dynamic activities can provide great insight into the complex mechanics of the socket/limb interface. Five participants with transfemoral amputation were recruited for this study. All participants had a well-fitting, ischial containment socket and were also fit with a compression/release stabilization socket. Participants underwent an 8-wk, randomized crossover trial to compare differences between socket types. Dynamic stereo x-ray was used to quantify three-dimensional residual bone kinematics relative to the prosthetic socket during treadmill walking at self-selected speed. Comfort, satisfaction, and utility were also assessed. There were no significant differences in relative femur kinematics between socket types in the three rotational degrees of freedom, as well as anterior-posterior and medial-lateral translation (p > 0.05). The ischial containment socket demonstrated significantly less proximal-distal translation (pistoning) of the femur compared to the compression/release stabilization socket during the gait cycle (p < 0.05), suggesting that the compression/release stabilization socket provided less control of the residual femur during distal translation. No significant differences in comfort and utility were found between socket types (p > 0.05). The quantitative, dynamic analytical tools used in the study were sensitive to distinguish differences in three-dimensional residual femur motion between two socket types, which can serve as a platform for future comparative effectiveness studies of socket technology.

Bring Me Your Hungers: Omnipotence, Mourning, and the Inexorable Limits of Time and Self in the Psychodynamic Treatment of Eating Disorders.

Drawing upon the classic use of physical hunger as both a concrete sign of and metaphor for deep emotional needs, this article elaborates upon the many layers of hunger the eating disorder patient experiences and narcissistic defenses commonly employed to deny them. The authors use two extended case examples that illustrate the arduous but worthwhile task of welcoming patients to "bring their hungers"-an invitation that calls clinicians to make contact with the patient's human desires, to repeatedly chip away at the omnipotence used to mask such cravings, and to provide a space for working through the inexorable limitations imposed by time and mortality. A third example of a clinician who struggled with embodied countertransference reactions further elucidates different manifestations of these defenses. This paper highlights the unique value that psychodynamic clinical work offers patients in tolerating their healthy physical and emotional appetites to ultimately facilitate a more satisfying life.

Assessing parents preferences for the avoidance of undesirable anesthesia side effects in their children undergoing surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Willingness to pay (WTP) surveys have proven to be useful tools in determining patient preferences though relatively few pediatric studies have utilized them. Studies in the adult surgical population have used such methods to assess patients' perspectives regarding the avoidance of anesthesia side effects or outcomes. The purpose of this survey was to assess parental preferences, using a relative WTP model, for the avoidance of anesthesia side effects in their children undergoing surgery. METHODS: The survey was distributed to 150 parents of children who were undergoing surgery. Parents were asked to rank order (1 = most unwanted to 7 = least troublesome) six stated potential anesthesia side effects and to allocate a fixed dollar percentage of a $100 toward prevention of each. A total of 142 surveys were returned (95% response rate). RESULTS: Parents ranked vomiting as the least desirable side effect for their child (rank order = 1.9) and pain as second (rank order = 2.14). However, parents allocated $33.48 to prevent pain compared with $28.89 for vomiting as a relative dollar amount. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that targeting management toward the prevention of these adverse outcomes may improve parental satisfaction with anesthesia care of their children.