Background:Originally designed for prosthetic control, regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces (RPNIs) prevent neuroma formation by providing free muscle grafts as physiological targets for peripheral nerve ingrowth. We report the first series of patients undergoing RPNI implantation for treatment of symptomatic postamputation neuromas.Methods:A retrospective case series of all amputees undergoing RPNI implantation for treatment of symptomatic neuromas between November 2013 and June 2015 is presented. Data were obtained via chart review and phone interviews using questions derived from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Statistical analyses were performed using dependent sample t tests with a significance threshold of P < 0.01.Results:Forty-six RPNIs were implanted into 16 amputees for neuroma relief (3 upper extremities and 14 lower extremities). Mean age was 53.5 years (6 females and 10 males). All patients participated in postoperative phone interviews at 7.5 ± 3.4 (range: 3–15) months. Patients reported a 71% reduction in neuroma pain and a 53% reduction in phantom pain. Most patients felt satisfied or highly satisfied with RPNI surgery (75%), reporting decreased (56%) or stable (44%) levels of analgesic use. Most patients would strongly recommend RPNI surgery to a friend (88%) and would do it again if given the option (94%). Complications included delayed wound healing (n = 4) and neuroma pain at a different site (n = 2).Conclusions:RPNI implantation carries a reasonable complication profile while offering a simple, effective treatment for symptomatic neuromas. Most patients report a significant reduction in neuroma and phantom pain with a high level of satisfaction. The physiological basis for preventing neuroma recurrence is an intriguing benefit to this approach.

BackgroundNovel techniques for the control of upper limb prostheses may allow users to operate more complex prostheses than those that are currently available. Because many of these techniques are surgically invasive, it is important to understand whether individuals with upper limb loss would accept the associated risks in order to use a prosthesis.MethodsAn online survey of individuals with upper limb loss was conducted. Participants read descriptions of four prosthetic control techniques. One technique was noninvasive (myoelectric) and three were invasive (targeted muscle reinnervation, peripheral nerve interfaces, cortical interfaces). Participants rated how likely they were to try each technique if it offered each of six different functional features. They also rated their general interest in each of the six features. A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections was used to examine the effect of the technique type and feature on participants’ interest in each technique.ResultsResponses from 104 individuals were analyzed. Many participants were interested in trying the techniques – 83 % responded positively toward myoelectric control, 63 % toward targeted muscle reinnervation, 68 % toward peripheral nerve interfaces, and 39 % toward cortical interfaces. Common concerns about myoelectric control were weight, cost, durability, and difficulty of use, while the most common concern about the invasive techniques was surgical risk. Participants expressed greatest interest in basic prosthesis features (e.g., opening and closing the hand slowly), as opposed to advanced features like fine motor control and touch sensation.ConclusionsThe results of these investigations may be used to inform the development of future prosthetic technologies that are appealing to individuals with upper limb loss.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0044-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Participants did not demonstrate significant improvements in energetics or preferred speed when wearing a clinically tuned powered ankle prosthesis compared to their non-powered prostheses. Prescribers of powered devices should understand that not all users will show an immediate reduction in energy expenditure.

For both isometric and isotonic conditions hemiparetic participants relied primarily on sense of effort, rather than proprioceptive feedback, for gauging lower limb force production. This outcome indicates that sense of effort is the major factor determining force production during movements. Lower limb rehabilitation therapies should not only train strength in the paretic limb but should also train patients to recalibrate force-scaling abilities to improve function.

BackgroundSurgically invasive interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control may allow users to operate advanced, multi-articulated devices. Given the potential medical risks of these invasive interfaces, it is important to understand what factors influence an individual’s decision to try one.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous online survey of individuals with upper limb loss. A total of 232 participants provided personal information (such as age, amputation level, etc.) and rated how likely they would be to try noninvasive (myoelectric) and invasive (targeted muscle reinnervation, peripheral nerve interfaces, cortical interfaces) interfaces for prosthesis control. Bivariate relationships between interest in each interface and 16 personal descriptors were examined. Significant variables from the bivariate analyses were then entered into multiple logistic regression models to predict interest in each interface.ResultsWhile many of the bivariate relationships were significant, only a few variables remained significant in the regression models. The regression models showed that participants were more likely to be interested in all interfaces if they had unilateral limb loss (p ≤ 0.001, odds ratio ≥ 2.799). Participants were more likely to be interested in the three invasive interfaces if they were younger (p < 0.001, odds ratio ≤ 0.959) and had acquired limb loss (p ≤ 0.012, odds ratio ≥ 3.287). Participants who used a myoelectric device were more likely to be interested in myoelectric control than those who did not (p = 0.003, odds ratio = 24.958).ConclusionsNovel prosthesis control interfaces may be accepted most readily by individuals who are young, have unilateral limb loss, and/or have acquired limb loss However, this analysis did not include all possible factors that may have influenced participant’s opinions on the interfaces, so additional exploration is warranted.