Introduction: Reasons why patients refuse wearing their upper limb prostheses deserve to be studied.

Method: Amputees were recruited from the clinics as well as from health- and accident insurances and Veterans’ Service Offices. Questions covered the patients’ medical history of amputation, their prosthetic supply and their present living conditions. 454 participants returned the anonymous questionnaire and could be entered into the study.

Amputation was caused by war (287), civil trauma or illness (123) and congenital (44). Age ranged from 3 – 96 years, with mean of 67.8. Distribution regarding sex and side was 411m/43 f and and 211 right/223 left. 20 had bilateral amputation. In 216 patients the dominant side was affected. Level of amputation was: wrist 36, BE 164, elbow 9, AE 201, shoulder 23, forequarter 3, unknown 18.

Prosthetic devices were classified as passive (i.e. cosmetic and passive work prostheses) or active, i.e. electrically- or body-powered prostheses as well as the combination of the two.

In the statistical analysis null hypothesis was that no factor influences the acceptance rate. Significant differences are accepted when p< 0.05.

Results: Electrically-powered prostheses were accepted best. Cosmetic prostheses were accepted well when stigmatization in the context of ethnic origin or religious affiliation may be important.

Acceptance rate was influenced by: Country of origin, religious affiliation, sex, learned occupation, therapist involved in training, return to work, incapacity for work, job held after amputation, own initiative in initiating prosthetic care, loss of friends or partners, level of amputation and the combined parameters AE-amputation and non-dominant side.

No influence was found for education, age at amputation, marital status, side of amputation, recommendation of prosthesis, time until first prosthetic fitting, phantom pain and phantom feeling, return to sports or hobbies, consumption of tobacco, alcohol or sedatives.

Discussion: Looking at all patients, the rates of acceptance of the various prosthetic types equals those found in the relevant literature. However, this study is much more detailed, looking at many different parameters and their combinations and can therefore provide some guidance to the successful prescription of upper limb prostheses. Nowadays electrically-powered prostheses are generally better accepted than all other types and should therefore be provided more often.

Aims: Minor foot amputations in diabetic subjects aim at the preservation of limb length and thus in keeping subject‘s ability to ambulate. Various surgical techniques are described and the clinical long-term outcome will be presented.

Methods: Between 1997 and 2004, 157 minor amputations and resections of the foot were performed in patients with diabetic foot syndrome. During follow-up focus was put on wound healing and rehabilitation, ambulation ability and the usage of mobility aids.

Results: In 112 patients 157 minor amputations of the foot have been performed. The mean frequency of reamputations was 52% with higher rate of failure in the forefoot compared with the hindfoot. In case of forefoot amputations orthopaedic shoes were regularly prescribed. In hindfoot amputations in general prostheses were fitted.

Conclusions: Amputations and resections of the foot have a long lasting tradition and deserve particular attention. Despite a relatively high risk of reamputation this intervention appears to be the only way to preserve limb length. As an essential prerequisite for a fortunate result of the treatment excellent quality of orthopaedic shoes and devices is mandatory.

Aims: Foot deformities following diabetic-neuropathic osteoarthropathy are often responsible for major amputations at the lower limbs. To preserve foot and lower limb length salvage procedures have to be introduced. Methods: In 59 patients with severe deformities of the foot (Sanders II-IV) surgical reposition and resection of necrotic bony substance has resulted in an axial correction of foot-malposition. Stabilization was effected using a fixateur externe device (Hoffmann II) over a period of 6 weeks. After removal of the fixateur externe stabilization of the lower leg was performed for another 6 weeks by means of orthotic devices. Results: Surgical reposition and stabilization in a total of 59 feet has resulted in 57 cases to conservation of the foot, in 2 cases later amputation was necessary. Immobilization in the fixateur externe resulted in a fast detumenescence of accompanying oedemas and in wound healing without special problems. Post-treatment examination after two years on the average revealed in all patients a stable pseudarthrosis without bony connection. 43 from 57 patients after about 6 months were provided with orthopaedic footwear. Conclusions: Surgical procedures which refrain from the use of implants and which do not increase arthropathic activities are capable to correct severe malpositioning of the foot without increasing the activity of arthropathy and result in superior long-term results in diabetic patients. They should therefore be applied with preference.

Aims: Better understanding of the influence of body mass to plantar peak pressure as a main biomechanical risk factor for ulcerations in the diabetic foot. To predict the effect of weight change on peak pressure. Methods: In-shoe peak pressure measurement (PEDAR, Novel) are performed in 5 patients with diabetic neuropathy and 5 controls: all wearing the same kind of ready made shoes with ready made standard fitting insoles of cork. Each subject is measured in 3 modes of weight simulation: normal weight, 20 kg weight increase (waistcoat with weight pieces) and 20 kg weight release by a movable overhead suspension covering a 6m walkway. Pace is selected individually after some pre-test walking to be comfortable in all 3 weight modes. For data analysis the plantar area of the foot is divided into 6 regions, particularly metatarsal region and heel. Results: No significant difference between diabetics and controls is found. In the most threatened regions (metatarsals and heel) peak pressure increases and decreases linearly with weight: A simulated weight change ± 20 kg increases/ decreases metatarsal peak pressure by ± 6.4 N/cm2. The corresponding figure for the heel region is ± 2.6 N/cm2. Conclusions: Weight increase or weight loss in the individual patient has at least in the metatarsal and heel region a significant effect to the plantar peak pressure. The linear relationship allows for a simple method of predicting the effect of weight change to peak pressure