Developmental Approach to Pediatric Prosthetic Evaluation and Training

  • Joanna Grace Patton


At the Child Amputee Prosthetics Project (CAPP) at the University of California in Los Angeles, treatment of children with limb deficiencies is based on the principles of normal child development. The child’s own developmental progress guides the timing of the first passive prosthetic fitting and later on the activation of the terminal device.1–3 The CAPP staff has long been a proponent of early prosthetic fitting. The philosophy is adhered to by many clinics, but clinicians differ in their definition of the word “early.” Sypniewski reported that early prosthetic fitting for the child with a unilateral below-the-elbow deficiency is a dominant theme in the literature and discussed the different rationale for each point of view.4


Control Line Residual Limb Terminal Device Limb Deficiency Bimanual Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blakeslee B (ed): The Limb Deficient Child. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1963, pp. 83–96, 173, 198, 211, 243, 309.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Setoguchi Y, Rosenfelder R (eds): The Limb Deficient Child. Springfield, Ill, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1982, pp. 14, 23, 56, 95–97, 113, 114, 143–158, 181–192, 212–236, 255.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patton J, Clarke S: Occupational therapy for the limb deficient child: A developmental approach to treatment planning and selection of prostheses for infants and young children with unilateral upper extremity limb deficiencies. In Symposium on Congenital Malformations—Its Clinical Management. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res 1980; 148:47–52.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sypniewski BL: The child with terminal transverse partial hemimelia: A review of the literature on prosthetic management. Artif Limbs 1972; 35–36.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks MB, Shaperman J: Infant prosthetic fitting: A study of the results. Am J Occup Ther 1965; 19:333.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher AF: Initial prosthetic fitting of the congenital below-elbow amputee: Are we fitting early enough? Inter-Clin Inf Bull 1976; 15:8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hein AE, Gower C, Diamond RM: Exposure requirements for developing the triggered component of the visual-placing response. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1970; 73.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hein A: Dissociation of the visual placing response into elicited and guided components. Science 1967; 158.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Held R, Bauer JA: Visually guided reaching in infant monkeys after restricted rearing. Science 1967; 155.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Held R, Hein A: Moment-produced stimulation in the development of visually guided behaviour. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1963; 56.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gingras G, Mongeau M, Moreault P, et al: Congenital anomalies of the limbs: Part I, medical aspects. Con Med Assoc J 1964; 91.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talbot D: The Child With A Limb Deficiency—A Guide For Parents. Child Amputee Prosthetics Project, University of California at Los Angeles, 1979, p 5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clinical Experience, Long Term Observation, and Accumulated Lecture Material From Child Amputee Prosthetics Project, University of California At Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sumida W, Shaperman J: Clinical application of the infant modular below-elbow prosthesis. Inter-Clin Inf Bull 1974; 13:9–14.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaperman J, Sumida C: Recent advances in research in children’s prosthetics, in Symposium on Congenital Malformations—Its Clinical Management. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res, 1980; 148:26.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaperman J: The CAPP Terminal Device—A Preliminary Clinical Evaluation. Inter-Clin Inf Bull 1975; 14:9–10.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gesell A, Ilg F: The Child From Five to Ten. New York, Harper & Bros, 1946, pp 35, 121–123.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wendt J, Shaperman J: The infant with a cablecontrolled hook. Am J Occup Ther 1970; 24:393.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaperman J: The Child Amputee: Observations on the Sequence of Learning Active Terminal Device Control. Masters Thesis, University of Southern California, Aug, 1960.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shaperman J: Early learning of hook operation. Inter-Clin Inf Bull 1975; 14:11–15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trefler E: Terminal device activation for infant amputees. Inter-Clin Inf Bull 1970; 9:11–12.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pulaski MS: Your Baby’s Mind and How It Grows: Piaget’s Theory for Parents. New York, Harper & Row, 1978, pp 87–89, 186.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brooks MB, Dennis J: Shoulder disarticulationtype prostheses for bilateral upper extremity amputees. Inter-Clin Inf Bull 1963; 2:2.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gesell A, Halverson H, Thompson H, et al: The First Five Years of Life. New York, Harper & Row, 1940, p 108.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmid H: Foot studies in children with severe upper limb deficiencies. Am J Occup Ther 1971; 25:160.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dennis J: Research in upper extremity prostheses for children. Proceedings of the Conference on Occupational Therapy for The Multiply Handicapped Child. University of Illinois, April 1965, pp 119, 186.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaperman J, Setoguchi Y, Sumida C: Another Look at Modular Prostheses. Newsletter: Amputee Clinics. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Vol 4, Aug 1975, pp 3–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Grace Patton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations