PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

PHYS THER
Vol. 60, No. 7, July 1980, pp. 909-911
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Figueroa, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wainapel, S. F
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Figueroa, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wainapel, S. F

Suggestions From the Field

Table to Facilitate Donning Stubby Prostheses by Bilateral Above-Knee Amputees

Carmen Figueroa, BS, David Rivera and Stanley F Wainapel, MD

Ms. Figueroa is Assistant Supervisor of Physical Therapy, Mr. Rivera is Rehabilitation Technician, and Dr. Wainapel is Acting Director, Rehabilitation Medicine, all at the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, North Central Bronx Hospital, 3424 Kossuth Ave, Bronx, NY 10467 (USA).

This excerpt was created in the absence of an abstract.

The use of short "stubby" prostheses in elderly bilateral above-knee amputees has been advocated by several authors.1–3 The major advantages of these prostheses are that they 1) lower the center of gravity, reducing the incidence and seriousness of falls and 2) eliminate the prosthetic knee joint, providing better control and possibly reducing the cardiovascular stress of ambulation.3 Cosmesis has been the major disadvantage.4 Another problem, which we recently encountered in training a 73-year-old patient with bilateral amputations, is difficulty in donning and removing the prostheses. A special table was constructed by one of the authors (D.R.) to facilitate this activity. Prior to its construction, our patient had to don his prostheses either while supine in bed (using a wall as counterforce) or balancing on the stubbies while they rested on the floor; both methods were unsafe and inefficient and required an inordinate amount of energy.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by the American Physical Therapy Association.