Day three - this day in O&P history
Charles King
Description
Collection
Title:
Day three - this day in O&P history
Creator:
Charles King
Date:
10/21/2021
Text:
So, it's day three of the AOPA meeting in 1976. I'd imagine that the hangovers were pretty epic by this point and cigarettes and coffee can only help so much . . . we've all been there. In 1976, a pack of Marlboro cost .49 cents and in twelve days the presidential election would be held. Spoiler Alert, Carter won.
Commercial Interruption:
The O&P library is a part of this O&P list Serv. All one big group, we aren't new, we've been around for over 20 years. The hat is being passed, please donate $7.00, you can afford it. Do so and you might win the raffle, prize will be something good, promise.
A library is a fundamentally boring thing. It is, no denying that, but it isn't boring when you need to look something up. Some O&P references are so rare that they don't exist online. I'll let that settle in a bit for the newer practitioners. Honestly, not down talking here, just providing perspective and experience; I'll repeat, some important O&P references don't exist online. Crazy isn't it. Can you spare $7.00 to help fix that?
Now here is the scary thing, some references have been lost. Gone, don't exist no more. Want a list? I can get you a list of lost things. It happens faster and easier than you might think. So we are passing the hat for the O&P library. This is a $7.00 fundraiser and there will be a raffle for all those that contribute. Am I repeating myself here? Yes I am. Link below for easy PayPal donation.
<URL Redacted> ¤cy_code=USD
End Commercial Interruption:
What's significant about the Fitzsimons' exhibit is that the 'research' conducted at Fitzsimons Army Hospital had a unique patient population. Let's do some quick statistics. In one treatment facility, they had access to over 50 above knee amputees in a short period of time, the majority of which were traumatic injuries and on patients that were previously fit and healthy. Take a look at this photo; this was a Fitzsimons Army Medical Center patient in the early 1970's.
<URL Redacted>
All told, they took 71 weight bearing X-rays of 51 above knee amputees. It wasn't research as we would use the term; it was an adopted clinical procedure. A more accurate modern frame might be it was quality control testing of a manufactured device. They took X-rays during the manufacturing process to ensure that the lateral wall of the socket supported the femur in adduction. An emphasis should be placed on the word during. They actively made changes to the alignment during manufacture then tested and verified the changes by X-ray. They produced objective data, very ISO. No, repeat no single subsequent prosthetic X-ray research has ever attempted to change the alignment of the above socket and then verify the changes by X-ray. The Fitzsimons efforts was a result of trying to solve an immediate and pressing problem (Vietnam war amputees) and done so unencumbered by preconceived notions.
Anyway, clinical observation is considered evidence in the hierarchy of things, so here is an observation by Jim Scanlon, PT.
It was a dramatic, almost immediate change in their walking. Their gluteus medius limp and their Trendelenburg would certainly be much less. The patients would make comments about how the new prosthesis and the alignment felt much more secure and much more balanced. It is something the patients would verbalize almost immediately when they put the new prosthesis on. It wasn't something that took days or weeks of training before they could see the difference or feel the difference. It seemed to be almost immediate.
I know, there such little value place on clinical observation, oh my, but we do have the recovered statistics from Fitzsimons. We have a recovered research paper that was never contemporaneously published but it contains all the statistics from Fitzsimons. I think the story of the research paper is a story for Friday or another day.
Here's a color image of the exhibit (post AOPA meeting), it's missing an ear phone speaker (I actually remember those things) but it's in color:
<URL Redacted>
I now see I messed up the order of the prior and current alignment in the Day One email, another reason why primary sources are always the best.
Please donate money, we need it.
Kind regards,Charles
Commercial Interruption:
The O&P library is a part of this O&P list Serv. All one big group, we aren't new, we've been around for over 20 years. The hat is being passed, please donate $7.00, you can afford it. Do so and you might win the raffle, prize will be something good, promise.
A library is a fundamentally boring thing. It is, no denying that, but it isn't boring when you need to look something up. Some O&P references are so rare that they don't exist online. I'll let that settle in a bit for the newer practitioners. Honestly, not down talking here, just providing perspective and experience; I'll repeat, some important O&P references don't exist online. Crazy isn't it. Can you spare $7.00 to help fix that?
Now here is the scary thing, some references have been lost. Gone, don't exist no more. Want a list? I can get you a list of lost things. It happens faster and easier than you might think. So we are passing the hat for the O&P library. This is a $7.00 fundraiser and there will be a raffle for all those that contribute. Am I repeating myself here? Yes I am. Link below for easy PayPal donation.
<URL Redacted> ¤cy_code=USD
End Commercial Interruption:
What's significant about the Fitzsimons' exhibit is that the 'research' conducted at Fitzsimons Army Hospital had a unique patient population. Let's do some quick statistics. In one treatment facility, they had access to over 50 above knee amputees in a short period of time, the majority of which were traumatic injuries and on patients that were previously fit and healthy. Take a look at this photo; this was a Fitzsimons Army Medical Center patient in the early 1970's.
<URL Redacted>
All told, they took 71 weight bearing X-rays of 51 above knee amputees. It wasn't research as we would use the term; it was an adopted clinical procedure. A more accurate modern frame might be it was quality control testing of a manufactured device. They took X-rays during the manufacturing process to ensure that the lateral wall of the socket supported the femur in adduction. An emphasis should be placed on the word during. They actively made changes to the alignment during manufacture then tested and verified the changes by X-ray. They produced objective data, very ISO. No, repeat no single subsequent prosthetic X-ray research has ever attempted to change the alignment of the above socket and then verify the changes by X-ray. The Fitzsimons efforts was a result of trying to solve an immediate and pressing problem (Vietnam war amputees) and done so unencumbered by preconceived notions.
Anyway, clinical observation is considered evidence in the hierarchy of things, so here is an observation by Jim Scanlon, PT.
It was a dramatic, almost immediate change in their walking. Their gluteus medius limp and their Trendelenburg would certainly be much less. The patients would make comments about how the new prosthesis and the alignment felt much more secure and much more balanced. It is something the patients would verbalize almost immediately when they put the new prosthesis on. It wasn't something that took days or weeks of training before they could see the difference or feel the difference. It seemed to be almost immediate.
I know, there such little value place on clinical observation, oh my, but we do have the recovered statistics from Fitzsimons. We have a recovered research paper that was never contemporaneously published but it contains all the statistics from Fitzsimons. I think the story of the research paper is a story for Friday or another day.
Here's a color image of the exhibit (post AOPA meeting), it's missing an ear phone speaker (I actually remember those things) but it's in color:
<URL Redacted>
I now see I messed up the order of the prior and current alignment in the Day One email, another reason why primary sources are always the best.
Please donate money, we need it.
Kind regards,Charles
Citation
Charles King, “Day three - this day in O&P history,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 1, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/255592.
