Myoelectric versus Body-Powered Upper-Limb Prostheses: A Clinical Perspective

Uellendahl, Jack E.

doi:10.1097/jpo.0000000000000151

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 If these contraindications to repair or replantation 5 are present and amputation is necessary, the application of a myoelectric upper limb prosthesis in the later postoperative period is an option. 6 Whereas the function of prostheses in the upper extremity has improved exponentially during recent military conflicts, intricate functions of the human hand are difficult to replicate. 7 As noted in the case presentation, the intact neural function in the patient's hand mandated operative repair rather than proximal amputation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salvage of the injured upper extremity

Feliciano

2021

Trauma Surg Acute Care Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salvage of the injured upper extremity

Feliciano

2021

Trauma Surg Acute Care Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They offer more natural and accurate motions than without myoelectric control, but also add weight, may require surgical implantation of sensors, and require training for successful use. 48 We chose to assess these two innovations together as well as both invasive and noninvasive myoelectric control, so we best reflected the risks and benefits of across all these choice options in our survey. Current technology advances a combined approach where the myoelectric controls are an integral part of the osseointegration device.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthesis preferences for those with upper limb loss: Discrete choice study of PULLTY® for use in regulatory decisions

Wilson

Dohan

Garibaldi

et al. 2023

Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineerin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The patient’s voice in shared decision-making has progressed from physician’s office to regulatory decision-making for medical devices with FDA’s Patient Preference Initiative. A discrete-choice preference measure for upper limb prosthetic devices was developed to investigate patient’s risk/benefit preference choices for regulatory decision making. Methods Rapid ethnographic procedures were used to design a discrete-choice measure describing risk and benefits of osseointegration with myoelectric control and test in a pilot preference study in adults with upper limb loss. Primary outcome is utility of each choice based conjoint (CBC) attribute using mixed-effects regression. Utilities with and without video, and between genders were compared. Results Strongest negative preference was for avoiding infection risk (B = −1.77, p < 0.001) and chance of daily pain (B = −1.22, p, 0.001). Strongest positive preference was for attaining complete independence when cooking dinner (B = 1.62, p < 0.001) and smooth grip patterns at all levels (B = 1.62, B = 1.28, B = 1.26, p < 0.001). Trade-offs showed a 1% increase in risk of serious/treatable infection resulted in a 1.77 decrease in relative preference. There were gender differences, and where video was used, preferences were stronger. Conclusions Strongest preferences were for attributes of functionality and independence versus connectedness and sensation but showed willingness to make risk-benefit trade-offs. Findings provide valuable information for regulatory benefit-risk decisions for prosthetic device innovations. Trial Registration This study is not a clinical trial reporting results of a health care intervention so is not registered.

show abstract

“…In order to satisfactorily meet the needs of the user, the prosthetic device should be able to carry out basic everyday tasks, provide sensory feedback to the user, perform a range of stable grips and provide the user with a reliable and efficient device [ 7 ]. There are many different types of prosthetics designed for upper limb amputees, such as passive prosthetics [ 8 ], body-powered prosthetics, which are operated using a body harness in combination with the upper body muscles and the pilot’s residual limb [ 8 ], myoelectric prosthetics [ 9 ], hybrid prosthetics [ 8 ] and Osseo-integrated prosthetics, which use intramedullary rodding in the residual bone [ 10 ]. The type of prosthetic chosen by the amputee depends on the comfort and functionality of the prosthesis, as well as the lifestyle, level of amputation and the specific needs of the user.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Touch Hand 4.5: low-cost additive manufacturing prosthetic hand participated in Cybathlon 2020 ARM discipline

Moodley

Fourie

Imran

et al. 2022

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Touch Hand 4.5 is a highly customisable prosthetic hand, which features an optimised modular design of the Touch Hand 4. The Touch Hand team has developed a low-cost prosthetic hand, which has been built using an additive manufacturing process. The functionality and features are discussed that are crucial for amputees. Methods This paper documents the design and integration of the Touch Hand 4.5 to be used in the Cybathlon 2020 event as well as the development of the mechanical structure of the hand, socket, electronics and control system utilized. The Touch Hand 4.5 was designed and continuously optimized, with the goal to achieve the tasks in the Cybathlon 2020 event. Results The performance and functionality of the Touch Hand 4.5 was tested on a global scale at the Cybathlon 2020. The device and technology were evaluated against the leading prosthetics and prototypes from around the world. A series of everyday tasks, as set by the Cybathlon event, were performed to determine the capabilities of the device, with the pinch grip, full grip, half grip, and a thumb grip. The Touch Hand team was the only team to complete the Haptic Box task in all three races, which comprised of the identification of objects without the aid of visual input or perception, with a duration between 100 and 120 s. The Breakfast task entailed completing a series of everyday breakfast tasks, such as cutting a loaf of bread, lighting a candle, opening a sugar packet, opening a plastic bottle and a jar, as well as opening a tin can with a can opener. This task was only completed in Race 3, with a duration of 132 s, due to a faulty equipment that was supplied. Conclusion The first contribution that was achieved was the design and development of an additive manufactured hand and socket, considering the socket to have comfort, breathability and decreased irritability. The second contribution was the design optimisation with the linear actuator integration, for a multi-grip hand, which allowed for the pinch grip, full grip, half grip, and a thumb grip. Slippage prevention with grip force control system integration was also implemented. Trial registration number: Ethical clearance certificate HCC/0161/011.

show abstract

Myoelectric versus Body-Powered Upper-Limb Prostheses: A Clinical Perspective

Cited by 16 publications

References 8 publications

Salvage of the injured upper extremity

Salvage of the injured upper extremity

Prosthesis preferences for those with upper limb loss: Discrete choice study of PULLTY® for use in regulatory decisions

Touch Hand 4.5: low-cost additive manufacturing prosthetic hand participated in Cybathlon 2020 ARM discipline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About