https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ABT-263.html 05), and less frequent/intense for those who started compared with those who continued using a prosthesis (P < 0.0001). Rates of prosthetic training were higher among those who received a different prosthesis type compared with those using the same type (P = 0.06). Satisfaction scores were higher (P < 0.01) for new prosthesis recipients, and lower at baseline for prosthesis abandoners compared with continued users (P = 0.03). Prosthesis abandonment appears to be predicated on dissatisfaction with the device, as well as less frequent/intense prosthesis use. These findings can be used to identify those at risk for prosthesis abandonment and improve their prosthesis experience. Prosthesis abandonment appears to be predicated on dissatisfaction with the device, as well as less frequent/intense prosthesis use. These findings can be used to identify those at risk for prosthesis abandonment and improve their prosthesis experience. Until recently, no study had compared the quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation treated with osseointegration to socket prosthesis users. Comparison of quality of life in two types of prostheses users a cohort of patients with osseointegration and patients equipped with a socket prosthesis who were group-matched for age, body mass index and mobility grade. A cross-sectional study that compared METHODS The quality of life of 39 participants (22 in the osseointegration group and 17 in the socket prosthesis group) was measured using the Questionnaire for Persons with Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and European Questionnaire 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) surveys. Compared with the socket prosthesis group, the osseointegration group had a significantly higher 'Global' score (p = 0.022) and a significantly lower 'Problem' score (p < 0.001) of the Q-TFA. The 'Mobility' (p = 0.051) and 'Use' scores (p = 0.146) of the Q-TFA, the EQ-5D-3L index (p = 0.723), and EQ-5D visual analog scale