Prosthetic prescription in the Netherlands: An interview with clinical experts

Prosthetics and Orthotics International

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 98-104

  Van Der Linde, H ^a   Geertzen, J H B ^b   Hofstad, C J ^a   Van Limbeek, J ^a   Postema, K ^b  

^a SINT MAARTENSKLINIEK   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POLYURETHAN; SILICONE;

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; JOINT FUNCTION; LEG PROSTHESIS; MEDICAL EXPERT; NETHERLANDS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRESCRIPTION; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PROSTHESIS MATERIAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SAFETY; WEIGHT BEARING;

EID: 4444252715     PISSN: 03093646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03093640408726694     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Casillas JM, Dulieu V, Cohen M, Marcer I, Didier JP (1995). Bioenergetic comparison of a new energy-storing foot and SACH foot in traumatic below-knee vascular amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76, 39-44.
2. Feder G, Eccles M, Grol R, Griffiths C, Grimshaw J (1999). Using clinical guidelines. Br Med J 13 March, 728-730.
3. Goh JCH, Solomonidis SE, Spence WD, Paul JP (1984). Biomechanical evaluation of SACH and uniaxial feet. Prosthet Orthot Int 8, 147-154.
4. Heller BW, Datta D, Howitt J (2000). A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees. Clin Rehabil 14, 518-522.
5. Huang GF, Chou YL, Su FC (2000). Gait analysis and energy consumption of below-knee amputees wearing three different prosthetic feet. Gait Posture 12, 162-168.
6. Isakov E, Susak Z, Becker E (1985). Energy expenditure and cardiac response in above-knee amputees while using prostheses with open and locked knee mechanisms. Scand J Rehabil Med (Suppl) No. 12, 108-111.
7. MacFarlane PA, Nielsen DH, Shurr DG (1997). Transfemoral amputee physiological requirements: Comparisons between SACH foot walking and flex-foot walking. J Prosthet Orthot 9, 144-151.
8. Murray MP, Mollinger LA, Sepic SB, Gardner GM, Linder MT (1983). Gait patterns in above-knee amputee patients: hydraulic swing control vs constant-friction knee components. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 64, 339-345.
9. Perry J, Boyd LA, Rao SS, Mulroy SJ (1997). Prosthetic weight acceptance mechanics in transfibial amputees wearing the Single Axis, Seattle Lite, and Flex Foot. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 5, 283-289.
10. Postema K, Hermens HJ, De Vries J, Koopman HFJM, Eisma WH (1997). Energy storage and release of prosthetic feet. Part 1: biomechanical analysis related to user benefits. Prosthet Orthot Int 21, 17-27.
11. Powers CM, Torburn L, Perry J, Ayyappa E (1994). Influence of prosthetic foot design on sound limb loading in adults with unilateral below-knee amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75, 825-829.
12. Rycroft-Malone J (2001). Formal consensus: the development of a national clinical guideline. Qual Health Care 10, 238-244.
13. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Grimshaw J (1999). Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. Br Med J 27 February, 593-596.
14. Snyder RD, Powers CM, Fontaine C, Perry J (1995). The effect of five prosthetic feet on the gait and loading of the sound limb in dysvascular below-knee amputees. J Rehabil Res Dev 32, 309-315.
15. a.
16. b.
17. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999). Clinical guidelines: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. Br Med J 20 February, 527-530.