Date Presented 3/31/2017
This presentation explores the perceived quality of life in two upper-extremity limb transplant recipients and compares them with a population of bilateral upper-extremity prosthetic users.
Primary Author and Speaker: Kaitlyn Jones
Additional Authors and Speakers: Carol A. Coté
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the ways in which receiving a bilateral arm transplant can impact overall perceived quality of life. This study used a survey given to two recipients of a bilateral arm transplant who are combat veterans. Survey questions addressed subcategories of quality of life including functional independence in occupations, satisfaction with social participation and self-image, and overall satisfaction with the limb transplant procedure and rehabilitation process.
DESIGN: This was a survey study. Participants included two bilateral upper-extremity (UE) limb transplant recipients who are combat veterans. Both participants were directly sent the link to the survey.
METHOD: The survey comprised 41 questions deemed relevant to bilateral UE transplant recipients in previous research. One participant used a retrospective portion in which he was asked to reflect back during the time in which he used prosthetic devices and rate his satisfaction with various aspects of quality of life, then assess his current status as a limb transplant recipient and rate his satisfaction with the same set of quality of life–based questions. The second participant was given the same quality of life survey before receiving his bilateral arm transplant and will retake the same survey early next year once significant healing has occurred following transplant in August 2016.
The main portion of questions addressed the participant’s ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) such as dressing and personal hygiene. The survey also addressed engagement in social participation in terms of level of comfort when engaging in social behaviors, physical and bodily appearance and self-image, and impact of limb transplants on close relationships. One overarching question was included that asked participants to rate their overall quality of life on a Likert scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst possible quality of life and 10 being the best possible quality of life.
RESULTS: The first participant, when asked to retrospectively rate his overall quality of life, scored 2 SD lower compared with UE amputees who had not received transplants and 1 SD higher after receiving his UE transplant. He also rated his satisfaction with ADLs, physical appearance, and level of social comfort lower than the average of the group in retrospect and significantly higher after his transplants. These results may have been biased due to the fact that questions were answered retrospectively. The second participant ranked these areas 1 SD lower than the group of similar pretransplant UE amputees. His posttransplant survey will be conducted in early 2017.
CONCLUSION: These case studies may provide support that bilateral UE transplants improve in quality of life and satisfaction in social and ADL functionality. However, the posttransplant survey of the second case is needed to provide the best comparison.
