Use and Satisfaction with Upper Limb Prosthesis From the User's Perspective - Portuguese Cross-sectional Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25759/spmfr.558Keywords:
Amputation, Upper Limb, Prosthesis Fitting, Patient Satisfaction, Rehabilitation, Treatment OutcomeAbstract
Introduction: Upper limb amputation has marked functional, aesthetic, and psychosocial implications. In Portugal, data on upper limb amputation and prosthetic fitting remain scarce, hindering healthcare planning.
Objective: To assess prosthesis satisfaction and use among individuals with upper limb amputation followed at a Portuguese tertiary center.
Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted including 46 participants with upper limb amputation of all etiologies who were fitted with a prosthesis between 2012 and 2022. A structured telephone questionnaire was applied, collecting information on demographic data, amputation characteristics, prosthetic fitting, use, and satisfaction with the prosthesis.
Results: Most participants were male (78.3%), with a mean age at acquired amputation of 30.64 years. The most frequent etiology was traumatic (76.1%), and the most common amputation level was forearm/wrist (54.35%). Mechanical prostheses were the most prescribed (51.06%). Only 17.39% underwent post-prosthetic training. The mean reported daily prosthesis use was 9.36 hours. The most frequently reported function of the prosthesis was cosmetic (65.22%). The prosthesis abandonment rate was 54.35%. Professional retraining and use in work or driving contexts were associated with prosthesis adherence. Overall, 63.04% of participants reported being at least satisfied with their prosthesis. Appearance, pain, and weight were positively correlated with overall satisfaction.
Conclusion: This study characterized a regional Portuguese sample of prosthesis users with upper limb amputation and evaluated prosthesis use and satisfaction. Most participants reported daily or occasional use and at least moderate satisfaction, although more than half had discontinued regular use. Significant associations were found between adherence and professional retraining, as well as between overall satisfaction and prosthesis-related factors such as weight, pain, and appearance.
Downloads
References
Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ. Limb amputation and limb deficiency: epidemiology and recent trends in the United States. South Med J. 2002;95(8):875-883.
Atroshi I, Rosberg HE. Epidemiology of amputations and severe injuries of the hand. Hand Clin. 2001;17(3):343-350, vii.
Crunkhorn A, et al. Management of upper limb amputation rehabilitation: synopsis of the 2022 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline for acquired amputation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2023;102(3):245-253.
Matos JP, Carolino E, Ramos R. Dados epidemiológicos sobre amputações realizadas em Portugal entre 2000 e 2015. In: IV Jornadas de Ortoprotesia; 2018 Jun 2; Lisboa, Portugal. Lisboa: ESTeSL; 2018. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.21/8818
Romano J, Caria N, Cavalheiro A, Cunha M, Cantista P. Caracterização de uma população portuguesa de amputados major: 5 anos de uma unidade de amputados de Medicina Física e de Reabilitação. SPMFR. 2025;37(1):12-19. Disponível em: https://www.spmfjournal.org/index.php/spmf/article/view/487
Jang CH, Yang HS, Yang HE, Lee SY, Kwon JW, Yun BD, et al. A survey on activities of daily living and occupations of upper extremity amputees. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35(6):907-921.
Craig M, Hill W, Englehart K, Adisesh A. Return to work after occupational injury and upper limb amputation. Occup Med (Lond). 2017;67(3):227-229.
Atkins DJ, Heard DC, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot. 1996;8(1):2-11.
Burger H, Marinček Č. Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(2):131-139.
Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. The DEKA Arm: its features, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012;36(4):349-353.
Peerdeman B, Boere D, Witteveen H, et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):719-737.
Haverkate L, Smit G, Plettenburg D. Design of body-powered upper limb prostheses: an overview of technologies and designs. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15(Suppl 3):154.
Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87(8):707-717.
Burger H, Marinček Č. Return to work after lower limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(17):1323-1329.
Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):236-257.
Biddiss E, Chau T. Predicting upper limb prosthesis acceptance and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(4):201-211.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista da Sociedade Portuguesa de Medicina Física e de Reabilitação
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright statement
Authors must also submit a copyright statement (as seen below) on article submission.
To the Editor-in-chief of the SPMFR Journal:
The below signed author(s) hereby state that the article
________________________________________ (ref. MFR_________) is
an original unpublished work and all facts stated are a product of the author(s) investigation. This article does not violate any copyright laws or privacy statements. The author(s) also hereby confirm that there is no conflict of interest's issues in this article.
By submitting this article the author(s) agree that after publication all copyrights belong to the SPMFR Journal.
Signed by all authors
Date:
Names (capital letters):
Signatures:
The SPMFR Journal’s contents are follow a Creative Commons licence. After publication the authors can hand out the articles as long as the SPMFR Journal is credited.
