Timed activity performance in persons with upper limb amputation: A preliminary study

Resnik, Linda; Borgia, Mathew L.; Acluche, Frantzy

doi:10.1016/j.jht.2017.03.008

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We selected a broad range of validated measures to assess important constructs for upper limb amputees. Performance based measures included a dexterity measure, theJebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT),[ 6 , 7 ] 4 and measures of activty performance: the Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputees (AM-ULA) [ 8 ]; University of New Brunswick Test of Prosthetic Function for Unilateral Amputees (UNB);[ 9 , 10 ] Timed Measure of Activity Performance (T-MAP), [ 11 ] and Brief Activity Measure for Upper Limb Amputees (BAM-ULA). [ 12 ] Although each of the activity measures assesses performance of daily activities, they differ considerably in their scoring criteria and item content.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The T-MAP is a timed based measure of common activity performance developed for upper limb amputees. [ 11 ]. It consists of 5 items that were adapted from the Rivermead Extended Activities Index [ 24 ] an Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) measure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The items in the T-MAP are: (1) drink, (2) wash face, (3) food preparation, (4) eating, and (5) dressing activities. The T-MAP revealed has very good internal consistency, excellent test-retest reliability, and evidence of construct validity [ 11 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses?

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesObjectives were to 1) compare self-reported function, dexterity, activity performance, quality of life and community integration of the DEKA Arm to conventional prostheses; and 2) examine differences in outcomes by conventional prosthesis type, terminal device type and by DEKA Arm configuration level.MethodsThis was a two-part study; Part A consisted of in-laboratory training. Part B consisted of home use. Study participants were 23 prosthesis users (mean age = 45 ± 16; 87% male) who completed Part A, and 15 (mean age = 45 ± 18; 87% male) who completed Parts A and B. Outcomes including self-report and performance measures, were collected at Baseline using participants’ personal prostheses and at the End of Parts A and B. Scores were compared using paired t-tests. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare outcomes for the full sample, and for the sample stratified by device and terminal device type. Analysis of outcomes by configuration level was performed graphically.ResultsAt the End of Part A activity performance using the DEKA Arm and conventional prosthesis was equivalent, but slower with the DEKA Arm. After Part B, performance using the DEKA Arm surpassed conventional prosthesis scores, and speed of activity completion was equivalent. Participants reported using the DEKA Arm to perform more activities, had less perceived disability, and less difficulty in activities at the End of A and B as compared to Baseline. No differences were observed in dexterity, prosthetic skill, spontaneity, pain, community integration or quality of life. Comparisons stratified by device type revealed similar patterns. Graphic comparisons revealed variations by configuration level.ConclusionParticipants using the DEKA Arm had less perceived disability and more engagement of the prosthesis in everyday tasks, although activity performance was slower. After home use experience, activity performance was improved and activity speed equivalent to using conventional prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses?

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputation (AM-ULA) [25], Brief Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputation (BAM-ULA) [26], and Timed Measure of Activity Performance (T-MAP) [27] are amputation-specific measures, comparisons to unimpaired samples were not possible. Instead, we compared our data to values previously published on Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Composite Score (MCS), and Physical Composite Score (PCS).…”

Section: Key Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb Veteran prosthesis users: a normative study

Resnik

Borgia

Cancio

et al. 2020

Disability and Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To present population data on standardized measures of dexterity, activity performance, disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and community integration for persons with upper limb amputation (ULA), compare outcomes to normative values, and examine differences by prosthesis type and laterality (unilateral vs. bilateral amputation). Materials and methods: Multi-site, cross-sectional design, with in-person evaluations, functional performance, and self-report measures. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed by amputation level and prosthesis type, data were compared for unilateral and bilateral amputation. Results: One hundred and twenty-seven individuals participated; mean age 57 years, 59% percent bodypowered prostheses users. All measures of dexterity differed (p < 0.05) by amputation level and by laterality. All measures of activity differed by amputation level with the best scores in transradial (TR) amputation groups. Comparisons of body-powered users with TR amputation found that dexterity was better for those with bilateral compared to unilateral amputation. Conclusions: Dexterity is markedly impaired in persons with ULA. Individuals with more proximal ULA levels are most impacted. HRQoL and community participation are less impacted and more equivalent to unimpaired persons. Further research is needed to examine differences by terminal device type and determine how best to match persons with ULA to the optimal prosthesis type and componentry, based on individual characteristics. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION This study provides population-based, comparative data on dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb prosthesis users. The study provides preliminary analyses comparing the effectiveness of body-powered devices, myoelectric devices with single degree of freedom and multi-degree of freedom terminal devices. The data presented in this study can be used to benchmark outcomes in patients who are upper limb prosthesis users. The data will also be useful to inform comparative evaluations of existing and emerging prosthetic technology.

show abstract

“…A suite of validated performance and self-report measures were collected. Performance measures included: modified Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function test (JTHFT) [ 11 , 12 ]; Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputees (AM-ULA) [ 13 ], University of New Brunswick Test of Prosthetic Function for Unilateral Amputees (UNB) [ 14 ], Timed Measure of Activity Performance (T-MAP)[ 15 ] and Brief Activity Measure for Upper Limb Amputees (BAM-ULA) [ 16 ]. JTHFT, UNB, AM-ULA and BAM-ULA were only collected at Baseline if the subject was a prosthesis user and had a functioning prosthesis at the time of the visit.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate outcomes of EMG-PR and inertial measurement units (IMU) control of the DEKA Arm as compared to personal prosthesis; and 2) compare outcomes of EMG-PR to IMU control of DEKA Arm.MethodsThis was a quasi-experimental, multi-site study with repeated measures that compared non-randomized groups using two types of controls: EMG-PR and IMUs. Subjects (N = 36) were transradial (TR) and transhumeral (TH) amputees. Outcomes were collected at Baseline (using personal prosthesis), and after in-laboratory training (Part A), and home use (Part B). Data was compared to personal prosthesis, stratified by amputation level and control type. Outcomes were also compared by control type.ResultsThe EMG-PR group had greater prosthesis use after Part A, but worse dexterity, lower satisfaction, and slower activity performance compared to Baseline; the IMU group had slower activity performance. After Part B, the EMG-PR group had less perceived activity difficulty; the IMU group had improved activity performance, improved disability and activity difficulty, but slower performance. No differences were observed for TH group by control type in Part A or B. The TR group using EMG-PR had worse dexterity (Parts A & B), and activity performance (Part A) as compared to IMU users.Discussion/ConclusionFindings suggest that for the TR group that IMUs are a more effective control method for the DEKA Arm as compared to the EMG-PR prototypes employed in this study. Further research is needed to refine the EMG-PR systems for multi-DOF devices. Future studies should include a larger sample of TH amputees.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551420.

show abstract

Timed activity performance in persons with upper limb amputation: A preliminary study

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses?

How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses?

Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb Veteran prosthesis users: a normative study

EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About