4.1 Article

Prevalence of back pain, its effect on functional ability and health-related quality of life in lower limb amputees secondary to trauma or tumour: a comparison across three levels of amputation

期刊

PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 97-105

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0309364610389357

关键词

Amputation; back pain; functional ability; health-related quality of life

资金

  1. Gyllenstiernska Krapperups Foundation
  2. Medical Faculty of Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: The prevalence of back pain and its effect on function and health-related quality of life across three levels of lower limb amputation secondary to trauma or tumour was studied. Study design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Forty-six lower limb amputees, aged 19-78 years, participated. The Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) and the short form 36 health survey (SF-36) were used. Results: Participants reported more back pain after amputation than before (p < 0.001). There was a significant association between back pain daily or several times/week and severe or moderate disability reporting on the RMDQ (p = 0.003). On the SF-36, the group as a whole scored significantly lower in health-related quality of life with regard to physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, social functioning and the physical component summary (PCS), and significantly higher in the mental component summary (MCS) compared to normative Swedish data. When all three levels of amputation were compared, no statistically significant differences were found in the RMDQ or SF-36 results. Conclusions: There was a high prevalence of back pain after amputation. Almost all participants having back pain daily or several times per week reported severe or moderate disability on the RMDQ. The group as a whole scored significantly lower for health-related quality of life in the PCS and significantly higher in the MCS compared to normative Swedish data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据