The American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists’ 2019 Annual Meeting and Scientific Symposiums is being held March 6-9 in Orlando, Florida. This Online Exclusive presents additional details about several presentations and papers to take you beyond the program. We hope the details enhance your experience or provide you with more insight into the proceedings.
Older Individuals with Upper-Limb Difference and Secondary Conditions: Telehealth
Debra Latour, OTD, MEd, OTR/L
This session will focus on improving the communication about secondary health conditions affecting the physical and mental health that older individuals with upper-limb loss/difference may experience. Latour’s research, which involved a needs assessment and focus group feedback, as well as testing of a pilot program, found that these individuals are often unaware of conditions they may experience, which may require specialized services that can be difficult to access, and may include issues related to pain, overuse, and perceptions of isolation and social stigma. The results of a pilot program found that a telehealth delivery program can lead to changes in health behavior.
To learn more about the O&P needs of older patients, read Developing O&P Solutions for Seniors:Meeting the Challenge in the January issue of The O&P EDGE.
Occupational Therapy Benefits for Multiarticulate Prosthetic Hand Users
Phillip Stevens, MEd, CPO, FAAOP
This free paper describes the benefits associated with occupational therapy for users of multiarticulate prosthetic hands. The results determined that those users who received occupational therapy reported being more adept in their employment, spent more time working, experienced improved psychosocial adjustment, and had decreased pain.
To learn more about teaming with occupational and physical therapists, read Partnering With Therapists:Improving Patient Access and Outcomes Through Collaboration in the February issue of The O&P EDGE.
Can We Talk?
Panelists: Kinsey Herrin, CPO/LPO; Walter Lee Childers, PhD, CP; Chrysta R. Irolla, MS, MSPO, CPO; Brian Kaluf, BSE, CP, FAAOP; Wendy Beattie, CPO, FAAOP; Kathryn A. Johnson, MS, SPO; and Jessica L. Corso, CO, LO
“Can We Talk?” repeats a session held at the 2018 Academy Meeting, which was intended to create a constructive environment for attendees at the meeting to have opportunities to interact directly with Academy Meeting speakers and other leaders in the profession around topics that matter most to members of the profession, and to bridge any distance between attendees and presenters.
In the 2019 “Can We Talk?” session, a variety of clinically relevant topics have been chosen and facilitators of each topic will guide small group roundtable discussions. Attendees can choose topics that interest them and will rotate tables at regular intervals in a kind of “speed dating” for O&P topics, which offers opportunities for attendees to engage with speakers and to mix experienced clinicians with students and residents. One of the main ideas behind the session is to create conversations and subsequent connections among clinicians. Because the session is interactive, clinicians who share a common interest can exchange new ideas and share techniques that they perhaps would not otherwise have the opportunity to share.
The topic list includes research in O&P; upper-limb prosthetics; foot and ankle mechanisms; partial feet; cranial remolding; strategies for effective utilization of residents and clinical assistants; practical implementation of new technology in the clinic; perspectives on changes in O&P, and carbon fiber dynamic bracing.
Abandonment Issues in Upper-Limb Prosthetics: Addressing the Problems
Panelists: Deanna Gates, PhD; Elaine Bidiss, PhD; Danielle Melton, MD; Christopher Fantini, CP; Chris Baschuk, CPO, LPO, FAAOP; Patt Prigge, CP, FAAOP(D); and Fanny Schultea, CPO
Sponsored by the Upper Limb Prosthetics Society
The goal of this panel discussion is to improve the quality and access to care for individuals with upper-limb amputations and differences. The varied areas of expertise among the panel includes users’ perspectives on different control strategies; rejection rates studies; physiatry and surgical techniques, clinical practice guidelines; prosthetic elements that influence acceptance; and interdisciplinary communication and are expected to provide many opportunities for discussion and dialogue. The intent of the session is for participants to come away with action items that clinicians and other O&P professionals can begin to implement to help reduce the level of upper-limb prosthesis abandonment. The session will be interactive and include audience questions and participation.
Amputee Mobility Predictor Scores for Persons with Recent Lower-Limb Amputation
Brian Kaluf, BSE, CP, FAAOP, and Matthew J. Major, PhD
This free paper addresses research conducted by Kaluf and Major presenting Amputee Mobility Predictor without a prosthesis (AMPnoPRO) scores from a patient population following recent lower limb amputation. Kaluf and Major found that no study had reported AMPnoPRO scores for patients with recent lower limb amputations prior to receiving their first prosthesis. Their study, therefore, focused on those individuals recovering from a recent amputation, and found that age, gender, and amputation level appear to influence AMP scores and hence rehabilitation potential. The authors believe the study can serve as a baseline characterization for future studies.
Predicting Low-Mobility Amputees Who Will Benefit from a Microprocessor-controlled Knee
Kenton R. Kaufman, PhD, PE; Kathie Bernhardt; Kevin Symms, CO, BOCPO
Researchers describe an alternative objective classification system to the K-level assignment to identify patients who will benefit from a microprocessor-controlled knee (MPK) in this free paper. Noting that prior research has demonstrated that people with a K2 level of function can benefit from an MPK, this report describes how to predict which K2-level amputees would benefit.
Fifty people over the age of 50 who had unilateral transfemoral amputations were evaluated while using their non-MPK before being fit and with an MPK and then retested after ten weeks of acclimation. Eight selection criteria were identified as potential factors, based on their sensitivity, which the researchers defined as the ability to predict which subjects will benefit from a MPK, and specificity, defined as the ability to predict which subjects won’t benefit from a MPK and therefore should use a non-MPK. The researchers regarded the MPK as effective if it reduced a participant’s falls.