Cargando…

Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study

OBJECTIVE: To describe upper body structures associated with upper limb reduction deficiency and the development of these structures over time, to examine the presence of physical complaints in this population, and to compare body structures and complaints between groups based on prosthesis use. DES...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Postema, Sietke G., van der Sluis, Corry K., Waldenlöv, Kristina, Norling Hermansson, Liselotte M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511484/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23226218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049727
_version_ 1782251619432267776
author Postema, Sietke G.
van der Sluis, Corry K.
Waldenlöv, Kristina
Norling Hermansson, Liselotte M.
author_facet Postema, Sietke G.
van der Sluis, Corry K.
Waldenlöv, Kristina
Norling Hermansson, Liselotte M.
author_sort Postema, Sietke G.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To describe upper body structures associated with upper limb reduction deficiency and the development of these structures over time, to examine the presence of physical complaints in this population, and to compare body structures and complaints between groups based on prosthesis use. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with a follow-up period of 24 years, with matched able-bodied controls. SUBJECTS: Twenty-eight patients with unilateral below-elbow reduction deficiency fitted with myoelectric prostheses, aged 8–18 years at inclusion. METHOD: Measurements of upper arm, trunk and spine were performed and study-specific questionnaires were answered at baseline and follow-up; the Brief Pain Inventory and the Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaires were answered at follow-up. RESULTS: Both at baseline and follow-up, within-subjects differences in structures of the arm and trunk were shown in patients but not in controls. Spinal deviations, although small, were greater in patients compared to controls. Self-reported disability was higher in patients compared to controls. Differences in back pain and effect of prostheses use could not be shown. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unilateral below-elbow reduction deficiency have consistent differences in upper body structures. Deviations of the spine, probably of functional origin, do not progress to clinically relevant scoliosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3511484
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35114842012-12-05 Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study Postema, Sietke G. van der Sluis, Corry K. Waldenlöv, Kristina Norling Hermansson, Liselotte M. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To describe upper body structures associated with upper limb reduction deficiency and the development of these structures over time, to examine the presence of physical complaints in this population, and to compare body structures and complaints between groups based on prosthesis use. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with a follow-up period of 24 years, with matched able-bodied controls. SUBJECTS: Twenty-eight patients with unilateral below-elbow reduction deficiency fitted with myoelectric prostheses, aged 8–18 years at inclusion. METHOD: Measurements of upper arm, trunk and spine were performed and study-specific questionnaires were answered at baseline and follow-up; the Brief Pain Inventory and the Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaires were answered at follow-up. RESULTS: Both at baseline and follow-up, within-subjects differences in structures of the arm and trunk were shown in patients but not in controls. Spinal deviations, although small, were greater in patients compared to controls. Self-reported disability was higher in patients compared to controls. Differences in back pain and effect of prostheses use could not be shown. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unilateral below-elbow reduction deficiency have consistent differences in upper body structures. Deviations of the spine, probably of functional origin, do not progress to clinically relevant scoliosis. Public Library of Science 2012-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3511484/ /pubmed/23226218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049727 Text en © 2012 Postema et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Postema, Sietke G.
van der Sluis, Corry K.
Waldenlöv, Kristina
Norling Hermansson, Liselotte M.
Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study
title Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study
title_full Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study
title_fullStr Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study
title_full_unstemmed Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study
title_short Body Structures and Physical Complaints in Upper Limb Reduction Deficiency: A 24-Year Follow-Up Study
title_sort body structures and physical complaints in upper limb reduction deficiency: a 24-year follow-up study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511484/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23226218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049727
work_keys_str_mv AT postemasietkeg bodystructuresandphysicalcomplaintsinupperlimbreductiondeficiencya24yearfollowupstudy
AT vandersluiscorryk bodystructuresandphysicalcomplaintsinupperlimbreductiondeficiencya24yearfollowupstudy
AT waldenlovkristina bodystructuresandphysicalcomplaintsinupperlimbreductiondeficiencya24yearfollowupstudy
AT norlinghermanssonliselottem bodystructuresandphysicalcomplaintsinupperlimbreductiondeficiencya24yearfollowupstudy