APPLICATION OF PPAM DEVICE IN PHYSICAL THERAPY OF PERSONS OF WORKING AGE AFTER LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2221-1217-2025-1-07Keywords:
Amputation, physical therapy, PPAM, fantom pain, programAbstract
The aim of the study: to assess the effectiveness of the post-amputation mobilization device (PPAM) as an additional tool in physical therapy of working-age individuals after lower limb amputation. Methods of investigation: analysis and generalization of data from scientific and methodological literature, sociological methods, medical and biological methods and methods of mathematical statistics. Results. After the course of physical therapy, positive dynamics was obtained in two groups of all studied indicators. When re-determining phantom pain, it was demonstrated that the average level of pain in the control group (CG = 8 patients) decreased by 2.1 points (38.2%) and averaged 3.4 (±1.1) points, and in the main group (MG = 8 patients) decreased by 2.6 points (48.1%), which is 9.9% more when compared with the CG. Limb swelling decreased in all patients compared with the initial examination, but in 43.8% the circumference of the operated limb compared to the healthy one still remained larger. The circumference of the operated limb in the CG decreased by 8.1% compared to the initial measurement, and in the main group – by 16.8%, which is 8.7% more than in the CG. The final survey of patients regarding complaints of anxiety and depression, according to the questionnaire (HADS) showed that in the control group the indicators decreased on average by 2.8 points (41.2%) from the initial level, and in the main group by 7.3 points (54.9%), which is 13.7% more than in the control group. In the CG all patients did not have pronounced symptoms of anxiety and depression, while in the MG group two patients still experienced moderate anxiety. The results of the survey prove that the PPAM device is an effective additional tool in physical therapy for people after lower limb amputations.
References
1. Беспаленко А., Щеглюк О., Кіх А. Алгоритм реабілітації військовослужбовців з ампутацією кінцівок на основі мультипрофесійного та індивідуального підходу. Український журнал військової медицини.. 2020. Т. 1. Вип. 1. С. 64–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46847/ujmm.2020.1(1)-064
2. Гур’єв C., Лисун l, Кушнір В. Ампутації кінцівок внаслідок сучасних бойових дій, клініко-анатомічний аспект. Український науково-медичний молодіжний журнал. 2018. Т. 3–4. Вип. 108. С. 34–37.
3. Маракушин Д., Чернобай Л., Ващук М. Фізіологічні механізми розвитку втоми. Медична наука України. 2021. Т. 17. Вип. 2.
4. Нагорна О., Дехтерук С. Фізична терапія хворих після ампутацій нижніх кінцівок. Rehabilitation & Recreation. 2020. Вип. 6.
5. Одинець T., Бєлов Є., Ванюк О. Фізична терапія військовослужбовців після ампутацій. Physical culture and sport: Scientific Perspective. 2023. Вип. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31891/pcs.2023.4.6
6. Порядок надання домедичної допомоги постраждалим при травматичній ампутації : Наказ Міністерства охорони здоров’я України від 09.03.2022 р. № 441. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0356-22#n497 (дата звернення: 26.02.2025).
7. Хоменко І., Король С., Халік В. Клінічно-епідеміологічний аналіз структури бойової хірургічної травми при проведенні антитерорестичної операції на сході України. Український журнал військової медицини. 2020. Вип. 2.
8. Chihuri S., Youdan G., Wong C. Quantifying the risk of falls and injuries for amputees beyond annual fall rates – a longitudinal cohort analysis based on person-step exposure over time. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2021. Vol. 24. P. 101–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101626
9. Clayton J., Salahadin Abdi A. Current Understanding of Phantom Pain and its Treatment. Pain Physician. 2022. Vol. 25, iss. 7
10. Davie-Smith F., Scott H. Scottish physiotherapy amputee research group. Pneumatic Post Amputation Mobility (PPAM) Aid. Physiotherapy. 2015. Vol. 101, iss. 1. P. 300–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.496
11. Dunkin M. Limb Amputation overview: Reasons, procedure, recovery.. WebMD. 2020. URL: https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/definition-amputation.
12. Erlenwein J., Diers M., Ernst J. Clinical updates on phantom limb pain. Pain reports. 2021. Vol. 6, iss. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000888
13. Hebenton J., Colvin J., Seenan C. Early PPAM aid use post-unilateral transtibial amputation is associated with reduced time to prosthetic fitting and finishing rehabilitation. Physiotherapy. 2017. Vol. 103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2017.11.110
14. Isherwood P., Robertson J., Rossi A. Pressure measurements beneath below-knee amputation stump bandages: elastic bandaging, the Puddifoot dressing and a pneumatic bandaging technique compared.. British journal of surgery. 1975. Vol. 62, iss. 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800621214
15. Lee J., Davie-Smith F., Hebenton J. Impact of PPAM aid use on the time to prosthetic limb delivery in patients with unilateral transtibial amputation: A retrospective analysis. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2023. Vol. 47, iss. 3. P. 258–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000176
16. McDonald C., Westcott-McCoy S., Weaver M. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2021. Vol. 45, iss. 1. P. 105–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364620972258
17. Mckechnie P., John A. Anxiety and depression following traumatic limb amputation: a systematic review. Injury. 2014. Vol. 45, iss. 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.015
18. Phutane P., Santre M., Tiwari K. Depression, anxiety, coping, and resilience among amputees: A cross-sectional tertiary care hospital-based study. Industry phychiatry journal. 2024. Vol. 33, iss. 1. P. 59–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_78_24
19. Redhead R., Davis S., Robinson K. Post-amputation pneumatic walking aid. British Journal of Surgery. 1978. Vol. 65. P. 611–612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800650907
