Selected Topics: Original ArticleThe Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) and Functional Assessment of Patients With Unilateral Upper Extremity DeficienciesLerman, Joel A MD*; Sullivan, Elroy PhD†; Barnes, Douglas A MD†; Haynes, Richard J MD†Author Information From the Department of Orthopaedics, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Northern California, Sacramento, California; and †Medical Staff Office, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Houston, Houston, Texas. Study conducted at Shriners Hospitals for Children, Houston, Texas. None of the authors received financial support for this study. Reprints: Joel A. Lerman, MD, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Northern California, 2425 Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95817 (e-mail: email@example.com). Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics: May-June 2005 - Volume 25 - Issue 3 - p 405-407 doi: 10.1097/01.bpo.0000149866.80894.70 Buy Metrics Abstract The Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) questionnaire was used to quantify functional abilities of a group of unilateral upper extremity deficiency (U-UED) patients and compare them with “normal” control children. Sixty-four consecutive patients with U-UED were assessed. Parents and adolescent (ages 11-21) patients responded. Underlying diagnosis, amputation level, and type of prosthesis were recorded. Scores were compared for congenital versus traumatic etiologies for patients with various amputation levels, and for patients using prostheses versus those not using prostheses. In both parent and patient responses, PODCI scores were significantly lower than “normal” for upper extremity function and sports. Scores were similar for congenital and acquired amputees. Responses from adolescent patients showed progressively decreasing scores for upper extremity, transfers, sports, and global function with progressively proximal amputation levels. Patients using prostheses with different terminal devices did not significantly differ. Parent responses for prosthesis wearers showed lower comfort/pain scores (ie, increased pain) than non-prosthesis wearers, but no significant differences in function, including upper extremity function. © 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.