A pilot study of stellate ganglion block paired with exposure therapy: Feasibility and acceptability in combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that stellate ganglion block (SGB) combined with trauma-focused therapy may help veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) whose symptoms have not responded to traditional treatments. By combining SGB with in vivo exposure, veterans may be more able to fully engage in treatment and see improvement in their overall functioning. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this project was to conduct a nonrandomized pilot trial on the feasibility and acceptability of delivering SGB paired with individual psychotherapy to veterans with combat-related PTSD. METHOD: Eligible veterans (N = 14) constructed a hierarchy of in vivo exposure exercises, received the SGB procedure, and attended four additional weekly psychotherapy sessions with a focus on exposure exercises. Participants completed measures at baseline, weekly during treatment, and follow-up assessments immediately posttreatment and 1-month later. RESULTS: The recruitment target was easily met, session attendance was strong, and dropout was relatively low (21.4%). SGB was well tolerated with only mild, transient side effects. Participants reported satisfaction with the treatment they received as measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (M = 28.8). Paired t test analyses revealed a significant decrease in PTSD symptoms as measured by the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. We also observed a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms as measured by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 in mixed models, F(2, 13) = 8.68, p = .004. There were no significant improvements in psychosocial functioning or quality of life. CONCLUSION: SGB paired with psychotherapy is feasible and acceptable to veterans and holds promise for symptom reduction among veterans with combat-related PTSD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Out-of-pocket costs and affordability of upper limb prostheses.

BACKGROUND: Given the funding policies in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the affordability of prostheses may be less of a concern among Veterans as compared to civilians. OBJECTIVES: Compare rates of out-of-pocket prosthesis-related payments for Veterans and non-Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA), develop and validate a measure of prosthesis affordability, and evaluate the impact of affordability on prosthesis nonuse. STUDY DESIGN: Telephone survey of 727 persons with ULA; 76% Veterans and 24% non-Veterans. METHODS: Odds of paying out-of-pocket costs for Veterans compared with non-Veterans were computed using logistic regression. Cognitive and pilot testing resulted in a new scale, evaluated using confirmatory factor and Rasch analysis. Proportions of respondents who cited affordability as a reason for never using or abandoning a prosthesis were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty percent of those who ever used a prosthesis paid out-of-pocket costs. Veterans had 0.20 odds (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.30) of paying out-of-pocket costs compared with non-Veterans. Confirmatory factor analysis supported unidimensionality of the 4-item Prosthesis Affordability scale. Rasch person reliability was 0.78. Cronbach alpha was 0.87. Overall, 14% of prosthesis never-users said affordability was a reason for nonuse; 9.6% and 16.5% of former prosthesis users said affordability of repairs or replacement, respectively, was a reason for abandonment. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-pocket prosthesis costs were paid by 20% of those sample, with Veterans less likely to incur costs. The Prosthesis Affordability scale developed in this study was reliable and valid for persons with ULA. Prosthesis affordability was a common reason for never using or abandoning prostheses.

Prosthesis nonuse and discontinuation in United States veterans with major limb amputation: Results of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Prosthesis use in persons with amputation can improve mobility and functional independence. Better understanding of the reasons for and outcomes associated with prosthesis nonuse is important to optimize function and long-term health in persons with amputation. OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were to describe the rate, reasons for, and factors associated with never using or discontinuing prosthesis use in United States (US) veterans with amputation. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study design. METHODS: The study used an online survey to assess prosthesis use and satisfaction in veterans with upper-limb and lower-limb amputation. Survey participation invitations were distributed by email, text message, and mail to 46,613 potential participants. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 11.4%. After exclusions, an analytic sample of 3,959 respondents with a major limb amputation was identified. The sample was 96.4% male; 78.3% White, with mean age of 66.9; and mean of 18.2 years since amputation. The rate of never using a prosthesis was 8.2%, and the rate of prosthesis discontinuation was 10.5%. Functionality (62.0%), undesirable prosthesis characteristics (56.9%), and comfort (53.4%) were the most common reasons for discontinuation. After controlling for the amputation subgroup, the odds of prosthesis discontinuation were higher for those with unilateral upper-limb amputation, female gender, White race (compared with Black race), diabetes, above-knee amputation, and lower prosthesis satisfaction. Prosthesis satisfaction and quality of life were highest for current prosthesis users. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds new understanding regarding the rate and reasons for prosthesis nonuse in veterans and highlights the important relationship between prosthesis discontinuation and prosthesis satisfaction, quality of life, and satisfaction with life.

Measuring residual limb health in persons with upper limb amputation: Modifications of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire residual limb health scale.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the user perspective on residual limb health problems is particularly important for amputation care, given the relationship between residual limb health and prosthetic satisfaction. Only 1 measure, the Residual Limb Health scale of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) has been validated for use in lower limb amputation, but not examined in persons with upper limb amputation (ULA). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a modified PEQ Residual Limb Health scale in a sample of persons with ULA. STUDY DESIGN: The study involved a telephone survey of 392 prosthesis users with ULA, with a 40-person retest sample. METHODS: The PEQ item response scale was modified to a Likert scale. The item set and instructions were refined in cognitive and pilot testing. Descriptive analyses characterized the prevalence of residual limb issues. Factor analyses and Rasch analyses evaluated unidimensionality, monotonicity, item fit, differential item functioning, and reliability. Test-retest reliability was assessed by an intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Sweating and prosthesis odor were prevalent at 90.7% and 72.5%, respectively; blisters/sores (12.1%) and ingrown hairs (7.7%) were the least prevalent problems. Response categories were dichotomized for 3 items and trichotomized for 3 items to improve monotonicity. After adjusting for residual correlations, confirmatory factor analyses showed acceptable fit (comparative fit index = 0.984, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.970, and root mean square error approximation = 0.032). Person reliability was 0.65. No items had moderate-to-severe differential item functioning by age or sex. Intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.76-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The modified scale had excellent structural validity, fair person reliability, very good test-retest reliability, and no floor or ceiling effects. The scale is recommended for use with persons with wrist disarticulation, transradial amputation, elbow disarticulation, and above-elbow amputation.

Initial treatment approaches and healthcare utilization among veterans with low back pain: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescriptions for Veterans with low back pain (LBP) persist despite the availability of PT, a lower medical risk treatment option. Patterns of treatment and subsequent healthcare utilization for Veterans with LBP are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of physical therapy (PT) and opioids and outcomes of spinal surgery and chronic opioid use for Veterans with incident LBP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study identifying Veterans with a new diagnosis of LBP using ICD codes from the Veterans Administration national database from 2012 to 2017. Veterans were classified into three treatment groups based on the first treatment received within 30 days of incident LBP: receipt of PT, opioids, or neither PT nor opioids. Outcomes, events of spinal surgery and chronic opioid use, were identified beginning on day 31 up to one year following initial treatment. We used propensity score matching to account for the potential selection bias in evaluating the associations between initial treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 373,717 incident cases of LBP between 2012 and 2017. Of those 28,850 (7.7%) received PT, 48,978 (13.1%) received opioids, and 295,889 (79.2%) received neither PT or opioids. Pain, marital status and the presence of cardiovascular, pulmonary, or metabolic chronic conditions had the strongest statistically significant differences between treatment groups. Veterans receiving opioids compared to no treatment had higher odds of having a spinal surgery (2.04, 99% CI: 1.67, 2.49) and progressing to chronic opioid use (11.8, 99% CI: 11.3, 12.3). Compared to Veterans receiving PT those receiving opioids had higher odds (1.69, 99% CI: 1.21, 2.37) of having spinal surgery and progressing to chronic opioid use (17.8, 99% CI: 16.0, 19.9). CONCLUSION: Initiating treatment with opioids compared to PT was associated with higher odds of spinal surgery and chronic opioid use for Veterans with incident LBP. More Veterans received opioids compared to PT as an initial treatment for incident LBP. Our findings can inform rehabilitation care practices for Veterans with incident LBP.

The Upper Extremity Functional Scale for Prosthesis Users (UEFS-P): subscales for one and two-handed tasks.

PURPOSE: To develop a self-report measure of activity performance for upper limb prosthesis users that quantifies outcomes by level of amputation and prosthesis type. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Telephone survey of 423 adults with major upper limb amputation (ULA) who used a prosthesis. Item generation, cognitive, and pilot testing were followed by field testing. Items were categorized as one- or two-handed. Factor and Rasch analyses evaluated unidimensionality, monotonicity, item fit, differential item functioning (DIF), and reliability. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Known group validity was assessed with ANOVAs. RESULTS: Respondents with unilateral ULA utilized prosthesis for 24% of unilateral and 38% of bilateral tasks. Those with bilateral ULA utilized prostheses for 64% of unilateral and 46% of bilateral tasks. Factor analyses identified a One-handed Task factor (CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.950, and RMSEA = 0.064) and a Two-Handed Task factor (CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.953, and RMSEA = 0.053). Response categories were collapsed to address monotonicity. After DIF adjustment, person reliability was 0.49 and 0.82 for One-handed and Two-handed Task scales, respectively, and ICCs were 0.88 and 0.91. Both scales differed by amputation level (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Upper Extremity Functional Scale for Prosthesis Users (UEFS-P) measure of upper limb function of prosthesis users has promising psychometric properties.Implications for rehabilitationMeasurement of upper limb function in persons with amputation is challenging, given currently available measures which do not explicitly grade activity performance with a prosthesis.The Upper Extremity Functional Scale for Prosthesis Users (UEFS-P) builds upon the original Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey (OPUS) UEFS Scale with modified instructions, a revised item set, response categories and scoring algorithm.The UEFS-P consists of two unidimensional scales, the One-handed Tasks scale and the Two-handed Tasks scale.The UEFS-P scales have clear advantages over existing self-report measures of upper limb function that ask about difficulty with performing functional activities without accounting for prosthesis use, and do not differentiate persons who use and do not use a prosthesis.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Physical Function in Persons With Upper Extremity Amputation: Comparison of Short Form Instruments.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System upper extremity measure (PROMIS UE) 7-item short form with 6- and 13-item versions for persons with upper limb amputation. DESIGN: The study used a telephone survey of 681 persons with upper limb amputation. Versions were scored two ways: PROMIS health measure scoring (PROMIS UE HMSS) and sample-specific calibration (PROMIS UE AMP). Factor analyses and Rasch analyses evaluated unidimensionality, monotonicity, item fit, differential item functioning, and reliability. Known group validity was compared for all versions. RESULTS: Model fit was acceptable for PROMIS-6 UE AMP and marginally acceptable for PROMIS-13 UE AMP and PROMIS-7 UE AMP. Item response categories were collapsed because of disordered categories. A total of 91.4% of participants had PROMIS-13 UE AMP scores with reliability greater than 0.8, compared with 70.4% for PROMIS-7 UE AMP, and 72.1% for PROMIS-6 UE AMP versions. No differences were observed by prosthesis use. Scores differed by amputation for all measures except the HMSS scored 13- and 7-item versions. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS-13 UE AMP short form was superior to the health measures scoring system scored PROMIS-7 UE or PROMIS-6 UE, and to the PROMIS-7 UE AMP and PROMIS-6 UE AMP. Issues with known group validation suggest a need for a population-specific measure of upper extremity function for persons with upper limb amputation.

Psychometric evaluation of the Southampton hand assessment procedure (SHAP) in a sample of upper limb prosthesis users.

BACKGROUND: The 26-item Southampton Hand Assessment Protocol (SHAP) is a test of prosthetic hand function that generates an Index of Functionality (IOF), and prehensile pattern (PP) scores. Prior researchers identified potential issues in SHAP scoring, proposing alternative scoring methods (LIF and W-LIF). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PURPOSE: Evaluate the psychometric properties of the SHAP IOF, LIF, and W-LIF and PP scores and develop the Prosthesis Index of Functionality (P-IOF). METHODS: We examined item completion, floor andceiling effects, concurrent, discriminant, construct and structural validity. The P-IOF used increased boundary limits and information from item completion and completion time. Calibration used a nonlinear mixed model. Scores were estimated using maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation. Mixed integer linear programing (MILP) informed development of a shorter measure. Validity analyses were repeated using the P-IOF. RESULTS: 126 persons, mean age 57 (sd 15.8), 69% with transradial amputation were included. Floors effects were observed in 18.3%-19.1% for the IOF, LIF, and W-LIF. Ten items were not completed by >15% of participants. Boundary limits were problematic for all but 1 item. Correlations with dexterity measures were strong (r =  0.54-0.73). Scores differed by amputation level (p > .0001). Factor analysis did not support use of PP scores. The P-IOF used expanded boundary limits to decrease floor effects. MILP identified 10 items that could be dropped. The 26-item P-IOF and 16-item P-IOF had reduced floor effects (<7.5%), strong evidence of concurrent and discriminant validity, and construct validity. P-IOF reduced administrative burden by 9.5 (sd 5.6) minutes. DISCUSSION: Floor effects limit a measure's ability to distinguish between persons with low function. CONCLUSION: Analyses supported the validity of the SHAP IOF, LIF, and W-LIF, but identified large floor effects, as well as issues with structural validity of the PP scores. The 16-item P-IOF minimizes floor effects and reduces administrative burden.

Measuring Satisfaction With Upper Limb Prostheses: Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey Revision That Includes Issues of Concern to Women.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) modify the Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey (OPUS) Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) instrument to incorporate issues of concern to women and (2) evaluate measure's structural and concurrent validity and reliability in persons with upper limb amputation (ULA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study with retest after 2 weeks. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Rasch analyses were used to select items and examine differential item functioning, range of coverage, and person and item reliability. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients. Pearson correlations were used to estimate associations with other prosthesis satisfaction measures. SETTING: Telephone administered survey. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 468 participants in the US (N=468; 19.9% women) with ULA, including a 50-person retest subsample (4% female). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Modified OPUS CSD. RESULTS: EFA suggested 3 subscales: Comfort, Appearance, and Utility. CFA found acceptable model fit. After dropping items with poor fit and high pairwise correlations in Rasch partial credit models, CFA model fit indices were acceptable (comparative fit index=0.959, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.954, root mean square error of approximation=0.082). Rasch person reliability was 0.62 (Utility), 0.77 (Appearance), and 0.82 (Comfort). Cronbach α was 0.81, 87, and 0.71 for Comfort and Appearance, and Utility subscales, respectively. Correlations between the modified CSD, the original CSD, and the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Satisfaction Scale were 0.54-0.94. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 3 subscales: Comfort (6 items), Appearance (8 items), and Utility (4 items) with 7 new items identified as important to women. The subscales demonstrate evidence of sound concurrent structural and test-retest reliability and concurrent validity. The Appearance and Comfort subscales have good reliability for group-level use in clinical and research applications, whereas the Utility subscale had poor to fair person reliability but excellent item reliability.

Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb Veteran prosthesis users: a normative study.

PURPOSE: To present population data on standardized measures of dexterity, activity performance, disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and community integration for persons with upper limb amputation (ULA), compare outcomes to normative values, and examine differences by prosthesis type and laterality (unilateral vs. bilateral amputation). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-site, cross-sectional design, with in-person evaluations, functional performance, and self-report measures. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed by amputation level and prosthesis type, data were compared for unilateral and bilateral amputation. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven individuals participated; mean age 57 years, 59% percent body-powered prostheses users. All measures of dexterity differed (p < 0.05) by amputation level and by laterality. All measures of activity differed by amputation level with the best scores in transradial (TR) amputation groups. Comparisons of body-powered users with TR amputation found that dexterity was better for those with bilateral compared to unilateral amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Dexterity is markedly impaired in persons with ULA. Individuals with more proximal ULA levels are most impacted. HRQoL and community participation are less impacted and more equivalent to unimpaired persons. Further research is needed to examine differences by terminal device type and determine how best to match persons with ULA to the optimal prosthesis type and componentry, based on individual characteristics.Implications for RehabilitationThis study provides population-based, comparative data on dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb prosthesis users.The study provides preliminary analyses comparing the effectiveness of body-powered devices, myoelectric devices with single degree of freedom and multi-degree of freedom terminal devices.The data presented in this study can be used to benchmark outcomes in patients who are upper limb prosthesis users.The data will also be useful to inform comparative evaluations of existing and emerging prosthetic technology.

Understanding Implications of Residual Limb Length, Strength, and Range-of-Motion Impairments of Veterans With Upper Limb Amputation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe and quantify the relationship between limb impairment variables to key functional outcomes. DESIGN: This was an observational study of 107 participants with unilateral above/at-elbow or below-elbow/wrist amputation. Demographics, prosthesis characteristics, residual limb length, and prevalence of passive range-of-motion restrictions, and strength impairments were described. Correlations between impairment variables were estimated. Linear regressions examined associations between impairment variables and activity performance, health-related quality of life, disability, and prosthesis satisfaction. RESULTS: Prevalence of short/very short below- and above-elbow residua was 25.7% and 12.5%, respectively. Shorter below-elbow/wrist residual limb length was correlated with elbow flexion weakness (r = 0.30) and prevalence of passive range of motion (r = 0.25). Shoulder prevalence of passive range-of-motion restrictions were correlated with shoulder (r = 0.27-0.51) and elbow weakness (r = 0.25-0.46). In regressions, activity performance was worse for those with shoulder flexion prevalence of passive range-of-motion restrictions (B = -5.0, P = 0.03) and better for those with flexion restrictions (B = 3.3, P = 0.04) compared with normal prevalence of passive range of motion. Prosthetic satisfaction was lower for those with limited elbow prevalence of passive range of motion. CONCLUSIONS: Short below-elbow residual limb length was correlated with impairment of elbow flexion strength and prevalence of passive range of motion. Prevalence of passive range-of-motion restrictions were most prevalent at the shoulder and were strongly correlated with weakness in the same planes of motion. Few significant associations were found between impairment variables and outcomes.

Frequency, severity, and implications of shoulder pain in people with major upper limb amputation who use prostheses: Results of a National Study.

BACKGROUND: People with upper limb amputation are potentially at increased risk of shoulder pain because they often perform compensatory movements to operate their prostheses and rely more heavily on their nonamputated limb for everyday activities. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, severity, associated factors, and implications of shoulder pain in people with unilateral major upper limb amputation who use prostheses. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational design. SETTING: National recruitment of people living in the community. PARTICIPANTS: U.S. veterans and civilians (N = 107) with unilateral major upper limb amputation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Shoulder pain (any, ipsilateral and contralateral to amputation), activity performance (Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputation), health-related quality of life (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey mental component summary [MCS] and physical component summary [PCS]), and disability (Quick Version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score [QuickDASH]). RESULTS: All participants completed a comprehensive in-person assessment. Participants were 97% male with a mean age of 57.1 years and a mean time since amputation of 23.4 years. The prevalence of any shoulder pain was 30% (15% ipsilateral, 25% contralateral, 10% bilateral). Shoulder pain intensity (0 to 10 scale) was moderate for both ipsilateral (mean 4.9, SD 2.0) and contralateral (mean 4.2, SD 2.0) pain. No significant difference in shoulder pain frequency was observed by amputation level. The prevalence of any shoulder pain was greater in those using a body-powered prosthesis (38% compared to 18% in externally powered users). Each additional year since amputation was associated with an increased likelihood of having contralateral shoulder pain (odds ratio: 1.05, confidence interval: 1.01, 1.10). In linear regression models, those with contralateral shoulder pain had worse PCS (ß = -7.07, p = .008) and worse QuickDASH (ß = 18.25, p < .001) scores. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of predominantly male veterans with major upper limb amputation, shoulder pain was a common condition associated with functional and quality of life implications. Among prosthesis users, the shoulder contralateral to the amputation was at greatest risk, with risk increasing with every year since amputation.

Upper limb prosthesis users: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: No previous studies have followed prosthesis users with upper limb loss or limb deficiency using their own prostheses to assess change over time. OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe prostheses and terminal device types used at baseline and 1-year follow-up; (2) to examine changes in functional outcomes and device satisfaction over time; and (3) to examine whether changes in outcomes varied across level of amputation and type of prosthesis used. STUDY DESIGN: Multisite, observational time series design with in-person functional performance and self-report data collected at baseline and 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Baseline and follow-up outcome scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Analyses were stratified by amputation level, time since amputation, prosthesis type, and change in device type. Published minimal detectable change (MDC) values were used to determine whether detectable change in outcome measures occurred. RESULTS: The longitudinal cohort consisted of 64 participants (mean age 64 years, 56% body-powered users). The only significant differences in outcome measures between baseline and follow-up (after adjustment for false discovery) were hours/day of prosthesis use, which increased from 6.0 (4.4) to 7.3 (5.3) hours (P = 0.0022). Differences in prosthesis use intensity remained significant in analyses stratified by amputation level, time since amputation, prosthesis type, and change in device type. Between 14 and 20% of the sample had change in one or more outcome measures that was greater than the known MDC. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants had stable outcomes over a year's time, whereas 14-20% experienced either improvement or decline in one or more tests indicating the importance of annual follow-up visits.

Amputation Care Quality and Satisfaction With Prosthetic Limb Services: A Longitudinal Study of Veterans With Upper Limb Amputation.

PURPOSE: This study sought to measure and identify factors associated with satisfaction with care among veterans. The metrics were colelcted for those receiving prosthetic limb care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense (DoD) care settings and at community-based care providers. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of veterans with major upper limb amputation receiving any VA care from 2010 to 2015 were interviewed by phone twice, 1 year apart. Care satisfaction was measured by the Orthotics and Prosthetics User's Survey (OPUS) client satisfaction survey (CSS), and prosthesis satisfaction was measured by the OPUS client satisfaction with device (CSD), and the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale satisfaction scales. The Quality of Care index, developed for this study, assessed care quality. Bivariate analyses and multivariable linear regressions identified factors associated with CSS. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests and Fisher exact tests compared CSS and Quality of Care items at follow-up for those with care within and outside of the VA and DoD. RESULTS: The study included 808 baseline participants and 585 follow-up participants. Device satisfaction and receipt of amputation care in the prior year were associated with greater satisfaction with care quality. Persons with bilateral amputation were significantly less satisfied with wait times. Veterans who received amputation care in the VA or DoD had better, but not statistically different, mean (SD) CSS scores: 31.6 (22.6) vs 39.4 (16.9), when compared with those who received care outside the VA or DoD. Those with care inside the VA or DoD were also more likely to have a functional assessment in the prior year (33.7% vs 7.1%, P = .06), be contacted by providers (42.7% vs 18.8%, P = .07), and receive amputation care information (41.6% vs 0%, P =.002). No statistically significant differences in CSS, Quality of Care scores, or pain measures were observed between baseline and follow-up. In regression models, those with higher CSD scores and with prior year amputation care had higher satisfaction when compared to those who had not received care. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care is associated with device satisfaction and receipt of care within the prior year. Veterans receiving amputation care within the VA or DoD received better care quality scores than those receiving prosthetic care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the 12 months of this study. Findings from this study can serve as benchmarks for future work on care satisfaction and quality of amputation rehabilitative care.

Longitudinal study of prosthesis use in veterans with upper limb amputation.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the patterns of prosthesis use and satisfaction of those who cease use or begin to use upper limb prostheses. OBJECTIVES: Among a longitudinal sample of Veterans with upper limb amputation, (1) describe changes in prosthesis use over 1 year, (2) examine rates of receipt of new prostheses, and (3) compare prosthesis satisfaction in respondents who received a new prosthesis to those who did not. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal survey. METHODS: 808 Veterans who had participated in a baseline interview 1 year earlier were invited to participate in structured telephone interviews. RESULTS: A total of 562 persons with unilateral and 23 with bilateral amputation participated in the interviews (Response rate = 72.4% and 85.2%, respectively). Prosthesis use, frequency and intensity of use, and types of prostheses used were stable over 1 year. About 24% reported using a different primary terminal device type at follow-up than baseline. Prosthesis use was less frequent/intense at baseline among those who discontinued use compared with those who did not (P < 0.05), and less frequent/intense for those who started compared with those who continued using a prosthesis (P < 0.0001). Rates of prosthetic training were higher among those who received a different prosthesis type compared with those using the same type (P = 0.06). Satisfaction scores were higher (P < 0.01) for new prosthesis recipients, and lower at baseline for prosthesis abandoners compared with continued users (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Prosthesis abandonment appears to be predicated on dissatisfaction with the device, as well as less frequent/intense prosthesis use. These findings can be used to identify those at risk for prosthesis abandonment and improve their prosthesis experience.

The Prevalence and Impact of Back and Neck Pain in Veterans With Upper Limb Amputation.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were (1) to describe frequency of back pain only, neck pain only, and co-occurring pain in veterans with upper limb amputation, (2) to examine changes in pain over 1 yr, and (3) to quantify the association of pain and health-related quality of life and disability. DESIGN: This is an observational cohort study with a survey of a sample of 792 veterans with upper limb amputation, with 1-yr reassessment of 585 (85.3%) of 777 eligible participants. Pain prevalence and intensity were examined. Logistic and linear regressions identified variables associated with pain and examined associations between intensity and veterans RAND-12 mental component score and physical component score and QuickDASH. RESULTS: At baseline, 52.3% had co-occurring pain, 20.0% had back pain, and 8.3% had neck pain. Persistent back and neck pain is present in 60.8% and 48.1% respondents, respectively. Pain intensity was unchanged for 59.1% with back pain and 61.3% with neck pain. Mental component score and QuickDASH were significantly worse with severe and moderate back and neck pain, compared with no pain. Severe/moderate back pain intensity was associated with lower physical component score. CONCLUSIONS: Back and neck pain is highly prevalent and persistent in veterans with upper limb amputation. Pain intensity is negatively associated with health-related quality of life and disability. Pain prevention and intervention are needed in this population.

Frequency and Severity of Phantom Limb Pain in Veterans with Major Upper Limb Amputation: Results of a National Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency and severity of phantom limb pain (PLP) in veterans with major upper limb amputation and determine the association between PLP and person, amputation, and prosthesis characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: National survey of veterans living in the community. PARTICIPANTS: U.S. military veterans (N = 776) with major upper limb amputations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and intensity of PLP, person characteristics such as age and gender, amputation characteristics such as level and etiology, and prosthesis characteristics such as type and intensity of prosthesis use. RESULTS: Respondents were 97% male with a mean age of 63 years and a mean time since amputation of 31 years. The most common amputation level was transradial (36%) and 62% reported accident as the amputation etiology. 73% of amputees reported PLP with a mean intensity score of 4.2 (standard deviation 3.4). PLP frequency in the daily to always category was reported in 42% of amputees. Weekly and more frequent residual limb pain was associated with having any PLP. Amputation at the shoulder (odds ratio [OR] 3.78 [1.93, 7.39]), amputation at the transhumeral level (OR 1.76 [1.10,2.81]), and amputation due to cancer (OR 5.33 [1.15, 24.81]) were also associated with any PLP. Moderate (ß = 1.34, P = < .001) and severe (ß = 3.31, P < .001) residual limb pain intensity was associated with higher PLP intensity among those with pain. Amputation at the shoulder level was associated with a 1.5 points higher average pain intensity score (P < .001) compared to the transradial level. Multivariable models failed to show an association between PLP prevalence and amputation of the dominant limb (P = .08) and PLP was not associated with intensity of daily prosthesis use in bivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: This study of a large cohort of veterans with major upper limb amputation highlights the long-term persistence of moderate frequency and intensity PLP.

Function and Quality of Life of Unilateral Major Upper Limb Amputees: Effect of Prosthesis Use and Type.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes of disability, activity difficulty, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by prosthetic device use and configuration and to identify factors associated with these outcomes. DESIGN: Telephone survey. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of veterans (N=755) with unilateral upper limb amputation recruited from a national sample of veterans with upper limb amputation who received care at the Veterans Affairs clinic from 2010-2015. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Upper limb-related disability was measured using Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (QuickDASH). HRQOL was measured using the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental and Physical Component scores. Activity difficulty was assessed for 1-handed and 2-handed tasks and by questions about the need for help with activities of daily living (ADLs). RESULTS: Patients who did not use a prosthesis had more difficulty performing 1-handed tasks using the residual limb as compared with those who used body-powered prostheses. Cosmetic device users had more task difficulty than body-powered or myoelectric users. Linear regression models did not show an association between type of prosthesis used and HRQOL scores, but did show that those who did not use a prosthesis (non-users) had worse QuickDASH scores (ß=9.4; P=.0004) compared to body-powered users. In logistic regression modeling, the odds of needing help with ADLs were 1.84 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.92) for non-users compared with body-powered users. CONCLUSIONS: Amputees who did not use a prosthesis or used a cosmetic prosthesis reported more difficulty in activities and greater disability as compared with those who use body-powered and myoelectric devices. Non-users were more likely to need help with ADLs as compared with those who used a body-powered prosthesis. Our findings highlight the clinical importance of encouraging prosthesis use. Further research is needed to compare physical performance by prosthesis configuration.