Prosthetic management of children in the Netherlands with upper limb deficiencies

The aim of the study was to assess which children with congenital and acquired upper limb deficiencies were Fitted with prostheses, what types of prostheses were prescribed as first, second and third prostheses, at what age prostheses were first prescribed and how long the children wore their prostheses. The design was a retrospective chart review at De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation Centre, Utrecht (The Netherlands). Medical files of all patients with congenital or acquired upper limb deficiencies who visited the outpatient clinic between 1972 and 1996 were reviewed, collecting data on patient characteristics, prosthesis prescription and use of prostheses. The group included 224 children, of whom 206 (92%) had congenital deficiencies. Of all children with unilateral congenital deficiencies, 54% had been fitted with prostheses, against 3% of all children with bilateral congenital deficiencies and 67% of all children with acquired deficiencies. In the congenital group, it was children with transverse defects of one-third or two-thirds of the forearm who had most frequently had prostheses fitted (85% of the children). Most of the children with unilateral congenital deficiencies had received passive prostheses as their first prostheses (80 of the 90 prescribed prostheses); children with acquired defects usually had active prostheses (8 of the 12 prescribed prostheses). Body-powered prostheses were most commonly prescribed as the second type of prosthesis. In the group of 119 children who had been seen before the acre of 4 years and had been followed for at least three years, 63 had been fitted with one or more prostheses at a mean age of 2.6 (SD 2.5) years. Of the 46 children with congenital defects, 30 had been fitted with prostheses, and at the acre of 12, two-thirds of them still used their prostheses (63%, 19/30). "De Hoogstraat" rehabilitation centre uses a restrained prosthesis prescription policy, depending on the type of deficiency and the expected functional benefits. Data on prosthesis use are encouraging, although a follow-up study is required to determine the functional outcome for prosthesis users and non-users.