Study the Duration of Producing Lower Extremity Prostheses and the Satisfaction of Patients

Main Article Content

Kawee Anannub


Background: In each years many patients need to amputation due to trauma, DM or cancer. Amputees cannot ambulation that affect for ADL, working, social and mental status.
Objective: To explore the duration of producing lower extremity prostheses and the satisfaction of patients in Surin Hospital.
Methods: Amputees who met the criteria were contacted and invited into the study.The interview was done at Surin Hospital. Data collection was conducted including demographic data, details of amputation, prosthetic device, usability in daily living and the satisfaction of the prostheses and the service. Data analysis was performed by computerized statistical program.
Results: Eleven lower limb amputees were recruited into the study. Averaging age was 56 years and 100% were male. The majority were below knee amputees (8 patients, 72.7%). 100% of subjects were still using the prostheses in daily living and 90.9% of amputees graded the satisfaction of prostheses level “most satisfied.” Duration of producing lower extremity above knee prostheses is 14.7 days and below knee prostheses is 6.9 days.
Conclusions: The 100% of the lower limb amputees were still using the prostheses in daily live. Majority had the level of satisfaction at the level of very good. Duration of producing lower extremity above knee prostheses is 14.7 days and below knee prostheses is 6.9 days. Appropriated length of service can help amputees to early ambulation and do activities daily living by self.
Keywords: Amputee, Prostheses, Limb, Patient satisfaction.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Original Articles


1. Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR, Mackenzie EJ, Ephraim P, Rossbach P. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85(5):723-9.

2. Gauthier-Gagnon C, Grisé MC, Potvin D. Enabling factors related to prosthetic use by people with transtibial and transfemoral amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80(6):706-13.

3. Seaman JP. Survey of Individuals Wearing Lower Limb Prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot 2010; 22(4):257-65.

4. Sarawanangoor P. The prostheses foundation's prosthetics uses and attitudes in 1996. วารสารการแพทย์ โรงพยาบาลศรีสะเกษ สุรินทร์ บุรีรัมย์ 2539;13(2):113-27.

5. Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79(8):931-8.

6. Braddom RL. Rehabilitation and prosthetic restoration in lower limb amputation. In: Braddom RL, Chan L, Harrast MA, Kowalske KJ, Matthews DJ, Ragnarsson KT, et al., editors, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 4th.ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier saunders; 2011: p. 289.

7. กัตติกา ภูมิพิทักษ์กุล, ชนินทร์ สุดโนรีกุล, ประภาพร ศิริทรัพย์. การศึกษาและติดตามการคงใช้ขาเทียมของโรงพยาบาลตำรวจ. เวชศาสตร์ฟื้นฟูสาร 2543;10(1):10-6.

8. Boonthai U, Kantaratanakul V, Jitorarhai C, Wiboonpanich S, Bunchorntavakul M. Influencing Factors in Usage of Lower Extremity Prostheses in Ramathibodi Hospital. J Thai Rehabil 1996;6(3):37-44.

9. จักกริช กล้าผจญ, วสุวัฒน์ กิตติสมประยูรกุล, กำพล พูลทาจักร, เทอดชัย ชีวะเกตุ. การชำรุดของขาเทียมใต้เข่าแบบแกนในที่ใช้เบ้า Thermoplastic. การประชุมวิชาการประจำปีมหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่ 2548. เชียงใหม่: มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่; 2548: p. 82-3.