Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development (JRRD)

Quick Links

  • Health Programs
  • Protect your health
  • Learn more: A-Z Health
Veterans Crisis Line Badge

Volume 47 Number 4, 2010
   Pages 361 — 372

Abstract —  Comparison of satisfaction with current prosthetic care in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts with major traumatic limb loss

Gary M. Berke, MS, CP, FAAOP;1* John Fergason, CPO;2 John R. Milani, CPO;3 John Hattingh, L-CPO;4 Martin McDowell, CPO;5 Viet Nguyen, MD;6 Gayle E. Reiber, PhD, MPH6-7

1Private Practice, Adjunct Clinical Instructor, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA; 2Prosthetics-Orthotics Clinic, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX; 3Clinical Manager, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Office, Prosthetics and Clinical Logistics Office, Washington, DC; 4Northwest Prosthetic and Orthotic Clinic, Seattle, WA; 5Prosthetic/Orthotic Laboratory, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA; 6University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; 7Health Services Research and Development Service, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA

Abstract — Prosthetic care is a vital aspect of healthcare and rehabilitation for veterans and servicemembers with major traumatic limb loss. Our survey queried 581 veterans and servicemembers with limb loss from the Vietnam and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) conflicts. Among survey participants, 78.2% from the Vietnam conflict and 90.5% from the OIF/OEF conflict currently use prosthetic devices. In Vietnam respondents, 78% received prosthetic care from private sources, 16% from Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prosthetic laboratories, 0.9% from Department of Defense (DOD), and 5% from multiple sources. In OIF/OEF respondents, 42% received prosthetic care from private sources, 9% percent from VA, 39% from DOD, and 10% from multiple sources. Participants identified their satisfaction with current prosthetic devices and prosthetic services. Reports of pain, sweating, skin irritation, and problems with socket fit continue to be significant issues for participants from both conflicts regardless of level of amputation or site of service. In those with upper-limb loss who used myoelectric prostheses, minimal effect on prosthesis use and satisfaction was noted. Among lower-limb loss participants from both conflicts, notable differences existed in prosthesis satisfaction by source of care.

Key words: amputation site, OIF/OEF, prosthesis, prosthetic care, prosthetic device, rehabilitation, satisfaction, traumatic limb loss, veteran, Vietnam, wounded servicemember.

View HTML  ¦  View PDF  ¦  Contents Vol. 47, No. 4

Last Reviewed or Updated  Monday, June 14, 2010 3:46 PM

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional