In today’s fast-paced world, it’s easy to assume that consumers want the most modern, most automatic, most high-tech option available. I recently experienced this when my husband and I went shopping for a reclining couch. The salesperson assumed we would prefer the powered options, which featured the smoothest reclining mechanism, handy USB charging ports, and effortless operation, all at a price comparable to the manual model. However, despite its advantages, the location of outlets near where we would put it and concerns about long-term reliability of the power model made it a suboptimal choice for us.
While a couch is obviously not comparable to a prosthesis, some of the same assumptions can be made in the high-stakes realm of lower-limb prostheses, where mobility and stability are crucial to patients’ quality of life. But here too, the most appropriate solution for an individual patient is not automatically the most high-tech device available given his or her K-level and insurance coverage. In this issue of The O&P EDGE, we look at the many factors that influence component selection, patient perspectives about prosthetic aesthetics, and the fall risk faced by lower-limb prosthesis users.
Microprocessor-controlled knees and ankle-foot prostheses have proven benefits in increased mobility and decreased fall risk for patients who qualify for them. For some people, however, locale, lifestyle, and personal preference may impact whether advanced technology is the best fit for them. “Finding the Right Tech for Lower-limb Patients” explores the considerations practitioners and their patients take into account in finding the most appropriate prosthetic solution, be it high-tech, low-tech, or a mix of the two with a primary and a backup option.
While showing the functional device without a cover has become more common, people’s reasons behind that choice, a realistic cover, or an expressive design fall across a broad spectrum. “Expressive Prosthetic Design” explores research around this sometimes-complicated relationship patients have with the appearance of their prostheses.
It’s well known that lower-limb prosthesis users are more prone to falls than people who do not have amputations. Unfortunately, identifying which patients are more likely to fall is difficult given the lack of research. In “Fall Risk: A Dearth of Real-world Evidence,” several experts provide their perspectives on the available assessments and what can be done to help prevent falls from becoming injurious in this population.
I hope you enjoy this issue dedicated to lower-limb O&P treatment and exploring that there is often more than one right choice: It’s all individual.
Happy reading.
