Comprehensive rehabilitation model of children in need of upper limb prosthetics due to congenital diseases

Rehabilitation in the prosthetics process can significantly enhance patients’ functional abilities and their skill in managing prostheses. Nevertheless, most international rehabilitation recommendations for prosthetic users are aimed at adults. Prior to this research, Russian scientific studies had not proposed a comprehensive model that would integrate current scientific knowledge on the rehabilitation of children needing upper limb prosthetics due to congenital diseases.

The aim of the study to develop an organizational-functional model of phased interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation for children requiring upper limb prosthetics due to congenital diseases.

Materials and methods. Organizational-functional modeling based on the analysis of regulatory legal acts, scientific research, and guidelines for the medical rehabilitation of children with upper limb peculiarities.

Results. The organizational-functional model of rehabilitation includes 3 stages: preparation for prosthetics, rehabilitation upon receiving the prosthetics, and family support during the use of the prosthetics. The main goals of each stage are developed, specialists responsible for solving specific tasks at each stage are identified, and organizations (divisions) responsible for the implementation of each stage are determined. Methodological materials for the parents of children from the target group have been created. Materials aim at optimizing interaction with families and their psychological support. A scheme for remote family support throughout the entire period of prosthetic use has been developed.

Conclusion. The developed organizational-functional model of phased interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation for children needing upper limb prosthetics due to congenital diseases is designed to ensure adherence to the fundamental principles of rehabilitation – early start, phased approach, continuity, interdisciplinarity, individualized approach, as well as active family involvement in the rehabilitation process.

1. Smith D.G., Michael J.W., Bowker J.H. Atlas Of Amputations and Limb Deficiencies: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2004. 965 p. ISBN: 0-89203-313-4

2. Goldfarb C.A., Shaw N., Steffen J.A., Wall L.B. The Prevalence of Congenital Hand and Upper Extremity Anomalies Based Upon the New York Congenital Malformations Registry. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017; 37(2): 144–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000748

3. Crunkhorn A., Andrews E., Fantini Ch., 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. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2023. 102(3): 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000002164

4. Kuzyakina A.S., Avxentyeva M.V. Practice and Challenges of Rehabilitation Treatment for Children in Need of Upper Limb Prosthetics: Parents Survey. Current Pediatrics. 2019; 18 (6): 424–434. https://doi.org/10.15690/vsp.v18i6.2062

5. Resnik L., Meucci M.R., Lieberman-Klinger S., et al. Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2012; 93(4): 710-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.010

6. Borisov I.V., Bondar V.A., Kanarsky M.M., et al. Remote Rehabilitation: Role and Opportunities. Physical and rehabilitation medicine, medical rehabilitation. 2021; 3(4): 399–408. https://doi.org/10.36425/rehab80253

7. Chen J., Sun D., Zhang S., et al. Effects of home-based telerehabilitation in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 2020; 95(17): e2318–e2330. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000010821

8. Esquivel K.M., Nevala E., Alamaki F., et al. Remote rehabilitation: a solution to overloaded & scarce health care systems. Trends in Telemedicine & E-health. 2018; 1: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.31031/TTEH.2018.01.000503

9. Silcox D.H. 3rd, Rooks M.D., Vogel R.R., Fleming L.L. Myoelectric prostheses. A long-term follow-up and a study of the use of alternate prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(12): 1781–1789. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199312000-00007

10. Dabaghi-Richerand A., Haces-García F., Capdevila-Leonori R. Prognostic factors of a satisfactory functional result in patients with unilateral amputations of the upper limb above the wrist that use an upper limb prosthesis. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition). 2015; 59(5): 343–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recote.2015.07.003

11. Wright V. Prosthetic outcome measures for use with upper limb amputees: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, 1970 to 2009. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 2009; 21(9): P3–P63. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0b013e3181ae9637

12. Soyer K., Unver B., Tamer S., Ulger O. The importance of rehabilitation concerning upper extremity amputees: A Systematic Review. Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 2016; 32(5): 1312–1319. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.325.9922

13. Toda M., Chin T., Shibata Y., Mizobe F. Use of powered prosthesis for children with upper limb deficiency at Hyogo Rehabilitation Center. Plos one. 2015; 10(6): e0131746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131746

14. Maguire M.T. Empowering prosthetics. Rehab Manag. 2008; 21(10): 10, 12-5. PMID: 19263992.

15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The Promise of Assistive Technology to Enhance Activity and Work Participation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017. 502 p. https://doi.org/10.17226/24740

16. Krebs D.E., Edelstein J.E., Thornby M.A. Prosthetic management of children with limb deficiencies. Physical therapy. 1991; 71 (12): 920–934. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/71.12.920

17. Kelly B.M., Davis A.J., Justice D., et al. Comprehensive care for the child with upper extremity limb deficiency. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine. 2009; 2 (3): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-2009-0079

18. Rosenfelder R. Infant amputees: early growth and care. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1980; 148: 41–46. PMID: 7379409.

19. Smurr L.M., Gulick K., Yancosek K., Ganz O. Managing the upper extremity amputee: a protocol for success. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2008; 21 (2): 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2007.09.006

20. Resnik L., Klinger S.L., Korp K., Walters L.S. Training protocol for a powered shoulder prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014; 51(8): vii-xvi. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2014.07.0162

21. Vasilchenko E.M., Puzin S.N., Kugotov A.G. Rehabilitation of disabled persons with limb loss due to peripheral artery diseases. Problems and solutions. Bulletin of the Russian association of specialists in medical and social expert evaluation rehabilitation and rehabilitation industry. 2020; 1: 129–141. https://doi.org/10.17238/issn19992351.2020.1.129-141

22. Vladimirova O.N., Shoshmin A.V., Malkova S.V., et al. National standarts in comlex rehabilitation and abilitation of disabled people. Bulletin of the Russian association of specialists in medical and social expert evaluation rehabilitation and rehabilitation industry. 2019; 4: 18–29. https://doi.org/10.17238/issn1999-2351.2019.4.18-29

23. Sereda A.N., Puzin S.N., Memetov S.S., et al. Features of the organization of medical rehabilitation at the present stage. Medical and Social Expert Evaluation and Rehabilitation. 2021; 24(2): 41–46. https://doi.org/10.17816/MSER66721