No abstract

Abstract-The choice of a myoelectric or body-powered upper-limb prosthesis can be determined using factors including control, function, feedback, cosmesis, and rejection. Although body-powered and myoelectric control strategies offer unique functions, many prosthesis users must choose one. A systematic review was conducted to determine differences between myoelectric and body-powered prostheses to inform evidence-based clinical practice regarding prescription of these devices and training of users. A search of 9 databases identified 462 unique publications. Ultimately, 31 of them were included and 11 empirical evidence statements were developed. Conflicting evidence has been found in terms of the relative functional performance of body-powered and myoelectric prostheses. Body-powered prostheses have been shown to have advantages in durability, training time, frequency of adjustment, maintenance, and feedback; however, they could still benefit from improvements of control. Myoelectric prostheses have been shown to improve cosmesis and phantom-limb pain and are more accepted for light-intensity work. Currently, evidence is insufficient to conclude that either system provides a significant general advantage. Prosthetic selection should be based on a patient's individual needs and include personal preferences, prosthetic experience, and functional needs. This work demonstrates that there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding functional differences in upper-limb prostheses.

No abstract

No abstract

Compared to non-microprocessor knees, the C-Leg microprocessor knee (MPK) is bioenergentically and economically more efficient and safer for transfemoral amputation (TFA) patients. The Genium MPK has demonstrated improvements in perceived function, knee kinematics, and physical functional performance compared to C-Leg. Clinical and health economic analyses have not been conducted with the Genium knee system. The purpose of this study was to determine if laboratory determined benefits of Genium are detectable using common clinical assessments and if there are economic benefits associated with its use. This study utilized a randomized AB crossover study with 60 d follow-up including cost-effectiveness analysis. Twenty TFA patients tested with both knees in mobility and preference measures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated based on performance measures. Stair Assessment Index scores improved with Genium. Mean stair completion times and descent stepping rate were not different between knees. Stair ascent stepping rate for C-Leg was greater compared with Genium (p = 0.04). Genium use decreased Four square step test completion time and increased functional level and step activity (p ≤ 0.05). Further, Genium use improved (p ≤ 0.05) function and safety in three out of five Activities of Daily Living (ADL) survey domains. Finally, more subjects preferred Genium following testing. Functional measures were used to calculate ICERs. ICER values for Genium fall within established likely-to-accept value ranges. Compared with C-Leg, Genium use improved stair walking performance, multi-directional stepping, functional level, and perceived function. In this group of community ambulators with TFA, Genium was preferred, and, while more costly, it may be worth funding due to significant improvements in functional performance with ADLs.