Quality of life among Filipino amputees after prosthetic rehabilitation at the UERMMMCI Philippine School of Prosthetics and Orthotics Charity Clinic

Hannah Lois  G. Tarroja,; Cherryrich  M. Cheng,

Quality of life among Filipino amputees after prosthetic rehabilitation at the UERMMMCI Philippine School of Prosthetics and Orthotics Charity Clinic

Hannah Lois G. Tarroja | Cherryrich M. Cheng

Abstract:

Introduction Amputation is often associated with depression, isolation and anxiety, resulting in changes in the functioning and quality of life of an individual. This study aimed to compare the quality of life of amputees before and after prosthetic rehabilitation and to determine the level of satisfaction with the services provided by the rehabilitation team. Methods This was a longitudinal study conducted at the Philippine School of Prosthetics and Orthotics from 2016 to 2017. Quality of life was measured at baseline and at the end of prosthetic rehabilitation using the Short Form-36 version 2 Philippines (Tagalog) and compared. Patient satisfaction was determined using the UERMMMCI Out-Patient Satisfaction Survey. Statistical analysis was done using paired t-test and stratified analysis. Results Twelve participants were included; majority were adult males and all were unemployed. There were no statistically significant changes in the quality of life of amputees after prosthetic rehabilitation. Stratification analysis revealed significant decreases in scores in bodily pain and general health scales for females. On the other hand, males had statistically significant increases in vitality scores. Participants were generally satisfied with the services they received. Conclusion While no significant changes were observed for overall quality of life, certain aspects may be related to factors such as sex, comorbidities, and type of caregiver. Recommendations include further studies to explore other factors affecting quality of life among Filipino amputees after prosthetic rehabilitation.

References:

World Health Organization. Measuring quality of life:The World Health Organization quality of life instruments [Internet]. 1997. Available from: http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdf
Higginson IJ, Carr, AJ. Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting.BMJ [Internet]. 2001; 322: 1297-300. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7297.1297
Deans SA, McFadyen AK, Rowe PJ. Physical activity and quality of life: A study of a lower-limb amputee population. Prosthet Orthot Int [Internet]. 2008; 32 (2):186-200. doi: 10.1080/03093640802016514
Sinha R, Van Den Heuvel WJA, Arokiasamy P.Factors affecting quality of life in lower limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int [Internet]. 2011; 35(1): 90-6. doi: 10.1177/0309364610397087
Eiser C, Darlington ASE, Stride CB, Grimer R. Quality of life implications as a consequence of surgery: Limb salvage, primary and secondary amputation. Sarcoma [Internet]. 2001; 5: 185-95. doi: 10.1080/13577140120099173
Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 1999; 48: 977-88. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00411-0
Cadavillo JV, Regidor JG, Serdone NR, Timbang KV. Effects of prosthetic rehabilitation on the functional mobility of patients with unilateral transtibial amputation: A pilot study. 2016.
Gallagher P, Desmond D. Measuring quality of life in prosthetic practice: Benefits and challenges. Prosthet Orthot Int [Internet]. 2007; 31(2): 167-76.doi:10.1080/03093640600988633
De Leon KP, Inciong GD. Prosthesis for a patient with proximal femoral focal deficiency: a case report. Acta Medica Philippina [Internet]. 2010; 44 (2): 67-71. doi:10.1080/03093640008726518
Tam CK, McGrath CP, Mun Yin Ho S, Ho Nang Pow E, Wai Kuen Luk H, Cheung K. Psychosocial and quality of life outcomes of prosthetic auricular rehabilitation with CAD/CAM technology. Int J Dentist [Internet]. 2014: 1-12. doi:10.1155/2014/393571
Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. The Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales and quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2004; 85: 730-6. doi: 10.1016/j. apmr.2003.07.009
Hagberg K, Branemark R. Consequences of non-vasculartransfemoral amputation: A survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int [Internet]. 2001; 25: 186-94. doi: 10.1080/03093640108726601
Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev [Internet]. 1999; 36 (3): 155-63. Available from: https://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/99/36/3/legro.htm
Castillo-Carandang NT, Sison OT, Grefal ML, et. Al. A community-based validation study of the Short Form-36 version 2 Philippines (Tagalog) in two cities in the Philippines. PLOS One 8 [Internet]. 2013; (12): e83794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083794
Hagberg K, Brånemark R, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B. Osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses: Prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients with 2-year follow-up. Prosthet Orthot Int [Internet]. 2008 Mar; 32(1): 29-41. doi: 10.1080/03093640701553922
Cox PSL, Williams SKP, Weaver SR. Life after lower extremity amputation in diabetes. West Indian Med J [Internet]. 2011; 60 (5): 536-40. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2007.10.006
Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim P, Rossbach P. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet] 2004; 85: 723-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.002