Transfemoral Interface Survey Results
Gerald Stark
Description
Collection
Title:
Transfemoral Interface Survey Results
Creator:
Gerald Stark
Date:
8/2/2019
Text:
Hey OANDP-L List Service Community!
I wanted to thank you so much for your support of this survey and all of the surveys I have sent you in the past. Your participation is so important to understand the trends of fitting within Orthotics and Prosthetics. I have learned so much from you in the past and there were some very interesting results from this survey as well.
There were 233 participants over 30 days from from 5/9/2019-6/6/2019 with a 100% completion rate of 3m:36s and 46 additional qualitative comments. With respect to Years of Experience, the largest group had 26 years or more of experience with 68 (29%) followed by those with 0-5 years of experience at 41 (18%). This distribution seems to be common among the other surveys I have done. When rating the experience, the largest group was Expert at 95 (41%) followed by Intermediate at 76 (33%) followed by Specialist at 31(13%). This would indicate a higher degree of confidence and self-efficacy with Transfemoral interfaces and fitting.
The number of fittings or scans per month were 0-5 at 178 (77%) followed by 6-10 at 41 (18%). The work environment was bimodal with 84 (36%) at Multiple Offices, Private Ownership and 79 (34%) Single Office, Private Ownership. Multiple Office. I think Corporate Ownership was under-represent compared to practitioner distribution at 20 (8.62%).
As to the number of check sockets two (2) were predominant at 140 (60 %) respondents and one (1) check socket was 55 (24%). When asked about what new innovations will have the biggest impact on transfemoral fitting Osseointegration was highest followed by Elevated Vacuum and Adjustable Socket System. Using just the #1 Ratings by each responent, Osseointegration was highest with 50 #1 selections, Adjustable Socket systems with 48 #1 selections, and Elevated Vacuum at 37 #1 selections followed by Scanning & Computer at 29 #1 selections. Replacement of the interfaces was predominantly every three years at 152 (66%) followed by every 5 years at 50 (22%). There were some comments that the replacement was really dependent on need of the patient.
The distribution of Liner versus No-Liner “Direct Fitting” was a bit surprising for me at 79% for liner and 21% for non-liner fittings for transfemoral interfaces. When asked what percentage of patients would be a good candidate for osseointegration the aggregate group indicated 16%. As to the number of liners provided each year for transfemoral interfaces 90 (40%) were 1-2 liners per year, 77 (33%) were 2-3 liners, and 60 (26%), were 3-4 liners per year. A number of comments indicated replacement liners should be need based. A number of comments indicated that osseointegration and adjustable socket systems were areas of interest as well as a concern that custom ischial containment and vacuum systems are not being utilized as much as they should be.
With respect to significant relationships of the data, there were significant relationships with Years of Experience, Patients seen per month, Proficiency, and Work Context which could be considered intuitive based on self-efficacy. Those with higher proficiency also had a slight negative relationship with number of check sockets fitted and number of socket replacements.
There was a small negatively significant relationship between Years of Experience and Liner vs. Non-liner Use, Osseointegration Techniques, and number of Liners used per year. This would indicate that clinicians with more experience may utilize non-liner interfaces slightly more, and provide slightly fewer liners. Also they would consider osseointegration for sightly fewer of their patients. When examined for predictive relationships using linear regression, none of the measures were considered significantly predictive.
Thanks so much for participating in the survey! Based on these results I may drill down a bit farther to clarify the results.
Best regards,
Gerry
Gerald Stark, Ph.D, MSEM, CPO/L, FAAOP(D)
Senior Clinical Specialist
Adjunct Professor
<Email Address Redacted>
<Email Address Redacted>
I wanted to thank you so much for your support of this survey and all of the surveys I have sent you in the past. Your participation is so important to understand the trends of fitting within Orthotics and Prosthetics. I have learned so much from you in the past and there were some very interesting results from this survey as well.
There were 233 participants over 30 days from from 5/9/2019-6/6/2019 with a 100% completion rate of 3m:36s and 46 additional qualitative comments. With respect to Years of Experience, the largest group had 26 years or more of experience with 68 (29%) followed by those with 0-5 years of experience at 41 (18%). This distribution seems to be common among the other surveys I have done. When rating the experience, the largest group was Expert at 95 (41%) followed by Intermediate at 76 (33%) followed by Specialist at 31(13%). This would indicate a higher degree of confidence and self-efficacy with Transfemoral interfaces and fitting.
The number of fittings or scans per month were 0-5 at 178 (77%) followed by 6-10 at 41 (18%). The work environment was bimodal with 84 (36%) at Multiple Offices, Private Ownership and 79 (34%) Single Office, Private Ownership. Multiple Office. I think Corporate Ownership was under-represent compared to practitioner distribution at 20 (8.62%).
As to the number of check sockets two (2) were predominant at 140 (60 %) respondents and one (1) check socket was 55 (24%). When asked about what new innovations will have the biggest impact on transfemoral fitting Osseointegration was highest followed by Elevated Vacuum and Adjustable Socket System. Using just the #1 Ratings by each responent, Osseointegration was highest with 50 #1 selections, Adjustable Socket systems with 48 #1 selections, and Elevated Vacuum at 37 #1 selections followed by Scanning & Computer at 29 #1 selections. Replacement of the interfaces was predominantly every three years at 152 (66%) followed by every 5 years at 50 (22%). There were some comments that the replacement was really dependent on need of the patient.
The distribution of Liner versus No-Liner “Direct Fitting” was a bit surprising for me at 79% for liner and 21% for non-liner fittings for transfemoral interfaces. When asked what percentage of patients would be a good candidate for osseointegration the aggregate group indicated 16%. As to the number of liners provided each year for transfemoral interfaces 90 (40%) were 1-2 liners per year, 77 (33%) were 2-3 liners, and 60 (26%), were 3-4 liners per year. A number of comments indicated replacement liners should be need based. A number of comments indicated that osseointegration and adjustable socket systems were areas of interest as well as a concern that custom ischial containment and vacuum systems are not being utilized as much as they should be.
With respect to significant relationships of the data, there were significant relationships with Years of Experience, Patients seen per month, Proficiency, and Work Context which could be considered intuitive based on self-efficacy. Those with higher proficiency also had a slight negative relationship with number of check sockets fitted and number of socket replacements.
There was a small negatively significant relationship between Years of Experience and Liner vs. Non-liner Use, Osseointegration Techniques, and number of Liners used per year. This would indicate that clinicians with more experience may utilize non-liner interfaces slightly more, and provide slightly fewer liners. Also they would consider osseointegration for sightly fewer of their patients. When examined for predictive relationships using linear regression, none of the measures were considered significantly predictive.
Thanks so much for participating in the survey! Based on these results I may drill down a bit farther to clarify the results.
Best regards,
Gerry
Gerald Stark, Ph.D, MSEM, CPO/L, FAAOP(D)
Senior Clinical Specialist
Adjunct Professor
<Email Address Redacted>
<Email Address Redacted>
Citation
Gerald Stark, “Transfemoral Interface Survey Results,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 2, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/209671.
